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 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,