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

Subscribe to Updates
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 Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
April 1, 2026
On March 30, 2026, Thailand’s Customs Department announced a strategy to raise import duties on a broad range of consumer goods—including plastic items and electronics accessories—to their maximum statutory ceilings, which often sit at 30% or 40%. Many of these goods currently benefit from promotional or incentive rates as low as 5%. For importers, e-commerce platforms, and logistics providers, this development demands immediate attention. While these increases generally require cabinet approval, they do not require full parliamentary amendment of the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, as the Customs director-general and the finance minister hold delegated authority to adjust rates within existing statutory bounds. Businesses should not assume that the legislative process will provide significant lead time before higher rates take effect. Death of the De Minimis: Abolishing the THB 1,500 Loophole This “ceiling-rate” policy, which is designed to equalize the landed cost of foreign goods with the domestic production costs of Thai manufacturers, builds on a sweeping set of customs reforms that have already begun to reshape Thailand’s trade environment. The foundation of this new regime was laid on January 1, 2026, when Thailand formally abolished the longstanding THB 1,500 duty exemption for small imported parcels under Customs Notification No. 219/2568. Every imported item is now subject to VAT and applicable import duties for its declared value, regardless of parcel size or transaction amount. By narrowing the scope of exemptions previously granted to low-value goods under the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, the government has made clear that the era of tax-free cross-border micro-imports is over. Three-Phased Strategy and Legal Modernization The March 30 announcement is the second phase of a three-part regulatory roadmap: Immediate enforcement: The removal of the THB 1,500 loophole and the imposition of VAT on all parcels, effective January 1, 2026. Tariff realignment: The current
Read More
March 31, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board has opened a public hearing period on draft regulations governing the transfer of direct sales and direct marketing businesses. The draft Notification of the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Committee: Criteria and Procedures for Business Transfer and Amendment of Registration for Direct Sales or Direct Marketing Businesses establishes a compliance-focused process with strict documentation requirements and timelines for transferring direct sales and direct marketing businesses. The proposed framework also defines the roles of transferors and transferees and establishes application procedures with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. Applications may be submitted in person or electronically and will be examined to confirm they are complete, authentic, and compliant with legal requirements. This includes verification that: The transferee meets all required qualifications; No disqualifying factors apply; and The applicant is not subject to legal restrictions. The public hearing period is open until April 29, 2026. Direct sales and direct marketing business operators should prepare for these proposed requirements to ensure compliant implementation once the regulations are finalized.
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More