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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More