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​ 

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
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
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.
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