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​ 

April 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
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