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

July 27, 2026

Vietnam’s E-Commerce Law Reshapes Online IP Enforcement

Managing Intellectual Property

Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement.

From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility

The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach.

Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available.

Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model.

The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur.

This obligation addresses one of the most persistent challenges in online brand protection. Under the previous framework, counterfeit listings frequently reappeared shortly after removal under different seller accounts or slightly modified product descriptions, forcing rights holders into an endless cycle of repeated takedown requests. The new legislation requires platforms not only to remove infringing listings but also to implement reasonable measures to reduce their reappearance.

Although the legislation does not prescribe any particular technology, compliance will likely require platforms to invest in tools such as image recognition, product fingerprinting, and seller behavior analysis. Whether implementation proves consistently effective remains to be seen, but it is clear that major platforms are expected to take active steps to prevent, rather than merely respond to, online infringement.

A unified enforcement framework for all IP rights

Another significant reform is the expansion of statutory online enforcement beyond copyright. Vietnam’s notice-and-takedown procedure under Decree 17 applies only to copyright and related rights. Trademark owners, patent holders and industrial design owners have traditionally relied on administrative enforcement or civil litigation, neither of which offers the speed or flexibility of platform-level enforcement.

The 2025 amendment to the IP Law and now the E-Commerce Law remove this distinction. These laws prohibit the trading of IP-infringing goods without limiting protection to any particular category of IP, while Decree 248 requires platforms to inspect, review, and promptly remove information relating to any IP-infringing goods upon requests from competent authorities.

The legislation also formalizes cooperation between e-commerce platforms and rights holders. Decree 248 requires platforms to establish publicly available complaint mechanisms through which IP owners may request the review, temporary removal, or blocking of listings showing indications of infringement. Although many major platforms had already introduced voluntary brand protection programs, the new legislation transforms this practice into a statutory obligation.

Notably, the E-Commerce Law does not establish a statutory counter-notice procedure comparable to that available under Decree 17 for copyright disputes. Government-directed removals remain subject to administrative review, while complaints submitted directly by rights holders are generally handled under each platform’s published complaint procedures. Compared with the copyright regime, this approach provides greater certainty for rights holders, although it also places greater responsibility on platforms to maintain fair and transparent complaint mechanisms.

For trademark owners, who account for the majority of online IP enforcement actions in Vietnam, the reforms provide the first dedicated statutory framework for platform-level enforcement.

Enforcement beyond the platform

The 2025 IP Law established a general framework governing intermediary service providers operating in cyberspace. Building on that foundation, the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248 prescribe how those principles apply in the e-commerce context through specific obligations for businesses supporting online transactions, giving practical effect to Vietnam’s broader intermediary liability reforms by extending compliance obligations across the e-commerce ecosystem.

Decree 248 extends these obligations beyond e-commerce platforms to technical infrastructure providers, logistics companies, and payment service providers. Upon requests from competent authorities, these entities may be required to block access to noncompliant platforms, suspend logistics services for infringing goods, or terminate payment services supporting infringing activities.

This significantly strengthens the enforcement framework against commercial-scale online infringement. Rather than focusing solely on individual listings, the legislation enables enforcement authorities to target the broader infrastructure supporting counterfeit operations. In many cases, disrupting payment, logistics, or technical services may prove more effective than repeatedly removing infringing listings.

The E-Commerce Law also strengthens Vietnam’s jurisdiction over foreign platforms. Overseas platforms exceeding specified transaction thresholds with Vietnamese consumers must register with the Ministry of Industry and Trade, establish a legal presence or appoint an authorized representative in Vietnam, and comply with the same obligations as domestic platforms. These localization requirements substantially improve the practical enforceability of Vietnamese law against cross-border platforms.

Looking ahead

Vietnam’s E-Commerce Law represents a significant evolution in the country’s online IP enforcement framework. Many aspects of implementation will continue to develop through regulatory guidance and enforcement practice. Nevertheless, it is clear that Vietnam has moved beyond a purely reactive model of intermediary liability toward one that expects major digital platforms to play an active role in preventing online infringement.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
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
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