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​ 

July 1, 2025
Now halfway through 2025, Thailand continues to advance in the realm of data privacy, with the ambitious goal of achieving zero data breaches. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), an independent government body established by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), is taking a more proactive approach, having published several rulings and orders to enhance data protection measures and clarify compliance expectations for businesses. Here is a look back at Thailand’s data privacy developments in the first half of the year. Strengthening Law Enforcement and New Guidance for Compliance Enforcement of existing data protection laws and regulations has taken a step forward this year. Some of the specific initiatives include: Increased enforcement by the PDPC. A key trend to watch from the first half of 2025 is the PDPC’s active enforcement of the PDPA as it intensifies oversight through compliance orders and public warnings against noncompliant organizations while ramping up efforts to prevent and halt the illegal trading of personal data by actively monitoring emerging societal issues. Call center scams and cyber fraud control. Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Orders from the Expert Committee. Several orders issued by the Expert Committee under the PDPA were announced in the first half of this year. These include directives for data controllers to take corrective actions to comply with the PDPA, as well as initiatives to raise awareness of data privacy within organizations, reflecting the regulator’s focus on promoting organizational awareness and compliance. A guideline report summarizing the Expert Committee’s decisions and orders was also published to serve as a reference for compliance. Public issue monitoring. The PDPC has been taking a more proactive approach
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
June 26, 2025
Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion,
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.