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

January 5, 2023

Vietnam’s Data Protection Regulations: What to Expect in 2023

Subscribe to Updates

Data protection in Vietnam has been an ever-changing area of law in the last few years, with many legislative and practical developments. From its initiative to build the very first comprehensive Personal Data Protection Decree to meet international standards, to its actions to tackle widespread illegal data processing and trading, the Vietnamese government has shown its determination to strengthen the protection of data, which it has recognized as one of the national key tasks in the Prime Minister’s Strategy for Development of E-Government.

The year 2023 is expected to be another year of many important changes made to the law and practices in this area. This article discusses what we anticipate to be the key upcoming developments in Vietnam’s data protection regime that businesses may wish to keep a close eye on to ensure compliance.

Tightened Rules on Data Collection and Data Transfer

The conditions for personal data processing under the current law are rather sketchily outlined. In general, the data subject’s consent to the scope and purposes of the data processing may be considered sufficient for any collection, use, retention, or sharing of personal data. Explicit consent is not clearly required, except when the data is collected in e-commerce, used for direct marketing purposes, or for other strictly controlled activities. This leads to the practice where data controllers usually do not treat consent as a serious matter. In addition, once consent has been obtained, data controllers tend to comfortably collect whatever data they want, since the law does not require the collection to be “proportionate.”

This situation is expected to change in 2023 with more stringent regulations on personal data processing underway. The first and most influential set of rules on data protection to come out early this year will likely be the much talked-about Personal Data Protection Decree (“PDPD”) developed by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), which has been in draft form since early 2021. The first public version of the draft PDPD (dated February 2021) proposed ruling out silence by data subjects as a valid form of consent, as well as requiring consent to be expressed in writing with a printable and reproducible format.

These new requirements, once taking force, could render illegal any processing of personal data without explicit consent. Other conditions of consent include that it can be made partially and conditionally, and withdrawn at any time by the data subject. In addition, the draft PDPD also proposed introducing the principle of data minimization (proportionality), according to which personal data collected must be limited to only what is necessary to accomplish the specified purposes.

The Draft Amended Consumers Protection Law (“Draft CPL”), scheduled to be promulgated within 2023, has also proposed tightening the conditions on consent for processing of consumers’ personal data. The Draft CPL requires traders, in obtaining consent for collecting consumer data, to establish a mechanism for consumers to select the types of information that they agree for the traders to collect and express their consent in a suitable form. For special processing purposes like sharing, disclosure, or transfer of personal data to third parties, and use of personal data for sending advertisements and introducing products, the Draft CPL requires a mechanism for the data subjects to clearly opt in to giving or not giving their consent. This requirement is similar to what is currently required for e-commerce websites/applications. In addition, bundled consent, i.e., a clause in a consumer contract or general terms and conditions that makes the conclusion of the contract or the terms and conditions dependent on the consumer’s consent to the collection, storage, and use of his or her data, is likely to be invalid under the Draft CPL.

Interestingly, the Draft CPL provides that collection of personal data that has been publicly disclosed does not require any notification to the consumers. This means scraping of publicly available personal data might be acceptable in Vietnam once the Draft CPL is promulgated and takes effect. However, scraping of non-publicly available personal data is still prohibited and could constitute a crime.

Apart from consent, the regulations on cross-border transfer of personal data will also soon be strengthened. The potential new approach to regulate cross-border transfer of personal data is believed to be revealed by chance in the Draft Decree on Sanctioning Administrative Violations in the Field of Cybersecurity (dated September 2021), which stipulates violations against the draft PDPD. Accordingly, the newly proposed conditions for cross-border data transfer may include only an impact assessment dossier for the transfer, a data transfer agreement between the sender and the recipient, and a post-transfer report to the personal data protection authority.

Compared to the onerous set of conditions for cross-border transfer of personal data that the MPS originally proposed in the draft PDPD, which include among others a state approval prior to the transfer and the storage of the original data in Vietnam, the new conditions appear less burdensome.

Intensified Regulatory Scrutiny

Despite the data protection regulations in place, reports on actual enforcement in practice have been rather limited. One possible reason is that regulatory inspectors have not been focusing on personal data in their activities. Things may change shortly with the recent message from the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) on its enforcement plan in this area (source).

In particular, the minister of the MIC announced that the MIC would conduct comprehensive inspections into companies’ compliance with the regulations on collection, processing, and protection of customers’ personal data in the coming time. Telecommunications carriers are said to be the first enterprises to be inspected, followed by postal companies and social networking platforms.

The issue of consent for data processing was notably highlighted by the minister in his discussion. Therefore, compliance in obtaining customer consent can be anticipated to be key in the MIC’s inspection scope. The implementation of technical and managerial measures to protect personal data according to the law is also likely to be scrutinized.

Continued Assertive Action against Illegal Data Trading

Vietnam has for years been a hotspot for the unauthorized trading of personal data, according to recent reports by the MPS and the MIC. The most common violation is where the infringing companies or their employees sell packages of customers’ identity and contact information including phone numbers, email addresses, and ID card information to third parties without authorization. Most of these data buyers would use the personal information for marketing purposes, including to make advertising calls or to send spam SMS or email advertisements to the information subjects. The violators may even use the personal data to commit financial fraud, including to obtain bank loans under the name of the data subject victims, or to impersonate state authorities or acquaintances of the victims to request money transfers (source). Data crimes therefore have been and will continue to be under the enforcement focus of the high-tech police at both the central and provincial levels.

The police are also likely to take a strict view and initiate a criminal prosecution against any act of illegal data trading. The most recent actions reported in the media include two cases where the police of Phu Tho Province prosecuted five individuals for the criminal act of “trading, exchanging, giving […] lawfully private information of an organization or individual on the computer or telecommunications network without the consent of the information owner” under Article 288 of the Criminal Code.

In one of the cases, two individuals were found using self-developed software to collect personal data of over 2 million people by scanning and capturing the data from Facebook and Google accounts, and selling the data. The other case involved three individuals’ collection and sale of more than 400,000 personal information records containing phone numbers and addresses, generating about VND 1.1 billion (approx. USD 47,000) from the illegal business (source). With the government’s determination to tackle data crimes, more criminal actions like these are expected to be seen in 2023.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

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
Read More
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,
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More