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

June 26, 2023

Vietnam Signals Intent to Loosen Control Over OTT Telecom and Cloud Services

Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) organized a workshop with industry representatives on June 19, 2023, to discuss its future policy direction for over-the-top (OTT) telecom services and internet data center (IDC) and cloud computing services. OTT telecom services, in the MIC’s interpretation, are communication services such as text messages or voice calls provided over the internet—for example, the services of Zalo, WhatsApp, WeChat, etc.

The workshop, the first in an expected series, focused only on the discussion of policy on how to regulate these services.

Light-Touch Management Approach

A very positive signal of the MIC in the workshop was its clear intention to apply a “light-touch” approach to management. For cross-border provision of OTT telecom services and IDC/cloud computing services, the MIC intends to require notification and a post-check mechanism, instead of a heavy licensing or commercial arrangement regime like the one applicable to traditional telecom services. In addition, there is no limitation on foreign investment if foreigners would like to provide these services in Vietnam.

With regard to domestic service providers, the MIC proposes a registration regime with a similar post-check mechanism. The MIC’s reason for registration instead of notification is because the provision of these services by domestic companies may involve setting up data center/cloud systems which require consideration of various issues including location, electricity sources, and connection with telecom infrastructure such as marine cable. However, the MIC is also hoping to make the registration process as light as possible for enterprises (for example, using online registration) to provide a favorable environment and conditions to facilitate development of the industry without obstacles or cumbersome administrative procedures for companies’ operations.

For providers of these services, the MIC is also considering an exemption from the responsibility to pay fees for telecommunications activities rights, and from payment to the Telecom Universal Service Fund, which traditional telecom companies are subject to. However, the provision of these services still needs to comply with relevant regulations on consumer protection, data protection, cybersecurity, network information security, national security, and service quality.

The MIC is contemplating the requirement of a service quality announcement. If the OTT telecom or IDC/cloud computing service providers can assure the quality of their services, they should let users know. If they cannot assure the quality of their service—for example, if they have no commercial arrangement with telecom service providers for the provision of their services or their service quality depends entirely on the service quality of the telecom carriers—this also needs to be publicly announced.

Regulated Under the Telecom Law?

Whether these OTT telecom services and IDC/cloud computing services should be regulated under the Telecom Law was a key issue discussed in the workshop. The MIC explained that the WTO defines value-added telecom services as services for storing and retrieving information through telecom networks, and Vietnam’s schedule of commitments on telecom services in the WTO also mentions information storage and information retrieval services. As IDC/cloud computing services involve storing and retrieving information through telecom networks, they should be considered telecom services. Countries such as China, Thailand, Korea have set a precedent by regulating IDC/cloud computing services as telecom services under their telecom laws. Currently, there are no regulations on conditions for market access and business conditions for providing these types of services, while Vietnam’s Investment Law clearly stipulates that data center services are conditional services. Thus, there is a need to regulate these services under the Telecom Law to overcome legal gaps and create facilitation and transparency for enterprises investing in and providing these services.

With regard to OTT communication services, 27 countries of the EU, China, and Korea are considering these services as telecom services and regulating them under their telecom laws. These OTT services are used more and more frequently and potentially will replace traditional telecom services, while the existing Telecom Law does not regulate these services, leading to the rights of users and information security not being ensured. Therefore, according to the MIC, it is appropriate to regulate these OTT services under the Telecom Law. However, according to the MIC, the Telecom Law will only provide a framework and will leave all the details to be regulated by a decree.

It is worth noting that the MIC only intends to regulate the provision of OTT telecom services when such services are the primary business of a company. When communication functions are merely add-ons and the company’s main business is not telecom services—for example, the chat/call functions of transportation services like Grab or social networks like YouTube—the MIC will consider exempting these add-on services from the scope of application of OTT telecom services.

While the industry representatives in the meeting were highly appreciative of the MIC’s approach and its openness and willingness to work closely with businesses and take their input into account, they expressed a strong sentiment for not including these services under the Draft Telecom Law. Rather, if these services need to be regulated, they should be regulated in a separate legal document.

The industry argument was that with the convergence of technology and the integration of many sectors and services, the differences between value-added telecom services and IT services have become very blurred and many countries have started deviating from this distinction. Data center/cloud computing services are more of the nature of IT services instead of telecom services. Also, OTT communication services do not use telecom resources such as frequency or numbering, they do not own telecom infrastructure to provide services, and they do not require interconnection to the public telecom network; they are essentially just applications and, like any application, they use the internet for service provision. Therefore, they should not be considered telecom services.

If the MIC still considers them telecom services and wishes to regulate them under the Telecom Law, the industry representatives strongly recommended that there should be separate chapters of the law and separate rules for these services, and the language of the law must clearly exempt these services from general rules governing traditional telecom services. In addition, the wording of the regulations should be straightforward and easy to understand, to avoid ambiguity and confusion in interpretation and implementation.

The MIC reassured the industry of their light-touch management approach and said this was just a matter of drafting techniques in putting those provisions under the Draft Telecom Law, and the MIC will involve the industry closely in the drafting process to ensure there is no confusion as to the policy intention in regulating these services.

 Moving Forward

The MIC appeared very open and willing to take input from the industry. It will continue holding workshops and dialogues and closely engage the industry in the drafting process, so that the Draft Telecom Law (amendment) which will be submitted to the National Assembly for a second reading and approval in November 2023 will achieve the purposes of creating transparency and facilitating an environment for business development and technology innovation.

It is therefore strongly recommended that businesses, associations, and experts should pay attention to the drafting process of this Draft Telecom Law and actively contribute opinions to the MIC.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded