You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 24, 2024

Vietnam Releases First Draft of New Personal Data Protection Law

Subscribe to Updates

On September 24, 2024, the government of Vietnam issued the first draft of a new Law on Personal Data Protection (“Draft PDPL”). As foreshadowed in our previous legal update, the Ministry of Public Security has been very active in developing this draft law. With this draft, they promise to continue their considerable efforts to establish a robust personal data protection culture in Vietnam, as the Draft PDPL indicates a tentative entry into force on January 1, 2026.

With a tentative adoption by the National Assembly in May 2025, the Draft PDPL does not include any transition period, save for micro-enterprises, SMEs, and startups, which are only exempted from appointing a data protection department in their first two years of existence, while the timeline to comply with other obligations under the PDPL remains the same as for other enterprises.

The Draft PDPL includes 68 articles, divided into seven chapters, making it more extensive than last year’s Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (“PDPD”), and expressly addresses personal data protection in many fields, including marketing services, behavioral advertising, big-data processing, AI, cloud computing, labor monitoring and recruitment, financial and credit information, health and insurance, and others.

It remains unclear how the PDPL will interact with the PDPD (whether it will replace its predecessor or coexist with it), although the Draft PDPL provides that it will prevail over any laws that have provisions on personal data protection that differ from the provisions of the PDPL.

Among the important new developments of the Draft PDPL when compared to the PDPD, we note:

  • Consent remains the main legal basis for processing, with limited exceptions (still not including “legitimate interest”). However, consent for cross-border transfer is further regulated under the Draft PDPL, including for intra-group sharing.
  • Data processing impact assessment dossiers for controllers and processors (“DPIA”) and transfer impact assessment for transferors (“TIA”) are retained, but, for the latter, the cases of transfer of personal data abroad have been further defined. These DPIAs and TIAs will have to be updated and submitted again to the authorities every six months or immediately upon material change.
  • New definitions have been inserted, such as “developers”, “personal data protection organization”, “personal data protection expert”, “de-identification of personal data”, “use of personal data for marketing”, “use of personal data for behavioral advertising”, and “personal data protection credit rating”, and other definitions currently found in the PDPD have been modified (e.g., land use right-related information has been included as “sensitive information”).
  • A data protection department must be appointed for basic personal data processing (it is no longer limited to sensitive personal data processing) and the Draft PDPL includes a recognition that a data protection department can be an external service provider (i.e., a personal data protection organization). The Draft PDPL further regulates this new service.
  • Certification mechanisms are introduced as credit ratings for personal data protection (high credibility, trust, pass, failing).
  • The 72-hour timeline to address certain data subjects’ requests and to notify the authorities in case of violation of the personal data protection regulations remains unchanged.

We will publish a deeper dive into the Draft PDPL shortly to provide you with more information on this new draft and draw comparisons with the PDPD, which was just enacted last year. [EDIT: Please see “Vietnam’s Draft Personal Data Protection Law: An In-Depth Look.”] Businesses are strongly encouraged to continue monitoring the development of this new legislation for preparation and to provide comments during the public consultation phase, which is open until November 24, 2024.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More