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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review