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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
June 19, 2026
For the first time, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a consolidated list identifying all substances that have successfully passed its novel food safety evaluation process. The list is a step forward in regulatory transparency, but it also highlights a feature of the Thai regime that food companies often overlook: each approval is tied exclusively to the company that applied for it. A substance’s appearance on the list does not give other companies the green light to use it. This article examines the structure of Thailand’s novel food approval framework, the implications of applicant exclusivity, and the strategic choices it requires of food companies looking to bring novel ingredients to the Thai market. Thai FDA Food Safety Evaluation Framework Notification No. 376 of the Ministry of Public Health requires novel food substances to undergo a food safety assessment, with an exemption only for novel foods manufactured exclusively for export. The framework also encompasses “foods that do not qualify as novel foods” but which present characteristics warranting a safety evaluation, such as differing quality standards, increased serving sizes, or applications in specific food categories, where such changes affect consumption levels, nutritional value, or consumer safety. The recently published list of foods that passed the safety evaluation by the Thai FDA is structured by substance category and identifies the approved company (domestic manufacturer or importer), country of origin, substance name and trade name, approved purpose of use, and date of the Thai FDA’s approval notification certificate. A notable feature of Thailand’s novel food regime is that the approval result is tied exclusively to the company that submitted the application. Publication of the consolidated list does not constitute a general authorization to use the approved substances. The Thai FDA’s approval certificate specifies the approved conditions of use and the requirements
Read More
June 17, 2026
Thailand’s new labeling requirements for medical devices, which include for the first time a unique device identification (UDI) requirement for software as a medical device (SaMD), take effect on June 20, 2026. The Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Criteria, Methods, and Conditions on Labeling and Instructions for Use for Medical Devices 2025, which replaces a similar notification from 2020, was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2025. To ensure clarity, modernity, and patient safety, the regulation requires domestic manufacturers and importers to provide labels and instructions for use (IFU) that are clearly legible, complete, and free of false or misleading claims. It also permits IFU to be provided in electronic format, such as via QR codes, websites, or other digital channels—directly relevant to SaMD, where physical labels are impractical and electronic presentation is the natural medium. The notification distinguishes two categories for labeling language. Home-use medical devices (for lay users outside healthcare facilities) must have labels and IFU in Thai. Professional-use medical devices may display labels and documentation in either Thai or English. This distinction is significant for SaMD developers: software intended for clinical professionals may use English-language interfaces and IFU, while consumer-facing health applications must provide Thai-language content. Labeling and UDI Requirements Labels and IFU must include, at a minimum: Product name and intended purpose Quantity or volume Name and address of domestic manufacturer or importer Thai FDA approval number Lot, version, or serial number Manufacturing date and expiry date For SaMD, the version number requirement is particularly relevant. The regulation also mandates display of a UDI code for SaMD in risk category 2 (moderate-risk), category 3 (moderate- to high-risk), and category 4 (high-risk), according to Thailand’s medical device risk classification system (which complies with the ASEAN Medical Device Directive and the EU
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More