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 5, 2026

Vietnam Takes Major Step in AI Governance with New Guiding Decree

Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations.

On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice.

Risk Classification Framework

The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined.

High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles.

Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns.

Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification.

Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts.

Providers must also review and reclassify AI systems where significant changes materially alter the system’s risk profile, where serious incidents reveal a higher level of risk, or where required by regulatory developments or competent authorities.

Key Compliance Requirements

Risk Classification Documentation and Notification of Medium- and High-Risk AI Systems

Before deployment, providers of medium-risk and high-risk AI systems must prepare risk classification dossiers containing key information regarding the system, its intended purpose, deployment context, affected users, principal input data, and applicable risk management measures.

Decree 142 limits disclosure obligations to information within the provider’s lawful access and control. Providers are generally not required to disclose source code, model parameters, raw training data, or protected confidential information. The decree also recognizes equivalent international technical documentation standards and, where an AI system uses personal data, permits a personal data processing impact assessment (DPIA) dossier prepared in accordance with personal data protection laws to replace or be integrated into the risk classification dossier, thereby reducing duplicative compliance requirements.

Providers must then notify the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) of the risk classification results through the national AI one-stop portal before deployment. The notification follows a self-declaration model and automatically generates an AI system identification code and electronic confirmation.

Governance Requirements for High-Risk AI Systems

Decree 142 clarifies that mandatory third-party conformity certification applies only to certain categories of high-risk AI systems. For other high-risk systems, providers may conduct self-assessments or engage accredited conformity assessment organizations, while remaining responsible for the assessment results.

Providers of high-risk AI systems must also establish and maintain risk management systems addressing risk assessment, data quality, human oversight, risk mitigation measures, and ongoing reviews following significant system changes. Reassessment is required where material changes affect the original conformity assessment results.

Deployers are subject to corresponding obligations, including monitoring system performance, maintaining human oversight, implementing risk controls, and notifying providers and authorities where serious risks or incidents arise.

Transparency Requirements for All AI Systems

Transparency is a central feature of Decree 142. Providers must implement machine-readable technical markings for AI-generated or AI-modified audio, image, and video content, such as metadata, digital signatures, or other provenance verification measures. Separately, deployers making AI-generated content available to the public must provide clear notifications where such content could mislead users regarding authenticity, particularly in relation to deepfakes, simulated voices, and recreated real-world events.

The decree recognizes a number of exceptions, including certain technical edits, internal-use content, and research or testing activities. Overall, the framework adopts a dual-layer approach combining technical traceability with user-facing transparency.

Incident Reporting for All AI Systems

Decree 142 further clarifies the AI Law’s serious incident regime. Covered incidents include those involving death, serious health impacts, significant property damage, serious infringements of rights and interests, or disruptions to public services, essential services, national security, or public order.

Providers and deployers must submit preliminary reports within 72 hours for urgent incidents or within five working days for other serious incidents, preserve relevant logs and data, and submit follow-up reports within 15 days. Where incident reporting obligations also arise under cybersecurity, personal data protection, or sector-specific regulations, reporting must additionally comply with those requirements.

Foreign Providers

The AI Law requires foreign providers of certain high-risk AI systems subject to mandatory conformity certification to establish a commercial presence or appoint an authorized representative in Vietnam. Decree 142 does not further clarify the scope of this requirement, leaving uncertainty regarding its application to cross-border AI services.

Other Notable Developments

Decree 142 introduces a controlled regulatory sandbox mechanism for AI systems. Depending on the risk level, deployment scope, and data involved, participants may benefit from certain regulatory flexibilities during testing while remaining subject to regulatory oversight and compliance with cybersecurity and personal data protection laws.

The decree also contains transitional provisions pending the launch of the national AI one-stop portal. However, as of the date of writing, the portal has not yet been launched and no formal alternative submission mechanism has been announced.

Outlook

Decree 142 represents a significant step toward operationalizing Vietnam’s AI Law by introducing detailed compliance obligations, governance requirements, and implementation procedures, particularly for high-risk AI systems. However, several important elements remain pending, including the prime minister’s official list of high-risk AI systems, further guidance on conformity assessment methodologies, and the launch of the national AI one-stop portal. Businesses should therefore continue monitoring forthcoming regulations and guidance to assess the practical impact of the regime on their AI-related activities in Vietnam.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should