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

August 15, 2025

Vietnam’s E-Commerce Legal Framework: A Deep Dive into the Draft E-Commerce Law

More than a decade after the issuance of Decree No. 52/2013/ND-CP (as amended by Decree No. 85/2021/ND-CP; collectively, “Decree 52”), Vietnam’s legal framework for e-commerce is under growing pressure to keep pace with the evolving digital economy. While Decree 52 has provided a foundational framework, it has shown certain limitations in keeping up with issues such as counterfeit goods, intellectual property enforcement, unqualified products, and emerging models like livestream selling and affiliate marketing.

To address these regulatory gaps, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) has released the 2025 Draft E-Commerce Law (“Draft Law”) for public consultation. The Draft Law is intended to supersede the current framework under Decree 52 and establish a more detailed and comprehensive legal foundation for the regulations of e-commerce activities in Vietnam. It is currently expected to be submitted to the National Assembly for review and potential adoption during its 10th session in October 2025.

In this article, we discuss the Draft Law’s most significant updates and legal developments in comparison to existing regulations, and assess the practical challenges that businesses may face in preparing for implementation in the near future.

Platform Classification: Toward a More Nuanced Framework

Unlike Decree 52’s simpler structure, which broadly categorized platforms into either (i) websites selling goods and services or (ii) websites providing e-commerce services, the Draft Law introduces a more detailed framework that aims to classify platforms based on their technical functions and business models. Specifically, the Draft Law introduces a four-tier classification system for e-commerce platforms, consisting of: (i) Direct Business Platforms, (ii) Intermediary Platforms, (iii) Social Networks with E-Commerce Functions, and (iv) Multi-Service Integrated Platforms. This approach reflects an effort to more accurately capture the complexity of today’s e-commerce landscape, including hybrid platforms such as TikTok Shop.

While this approach reflects the growing complexity of the digital/e-commerce landscape, it currently lacks clear criteria or thresholds for distinguishing between categories. This ambiguity may create uncertainty for platforms that operate across multiple functions, such as combining direct sales, third-party marketplaces, and social commerce features. While such models may potentially fall under the “Multi-Service Integrated Platforms” category, the Draft Law does not currently provide clear criteria to distinguish between overlapping platform types. As a result, it remains unclear how these platforms should be classified and which set of compliance obligations would apply.

Operator Responsibilities: Broader Scope and Heightened Compliance Burden

While Decree 52 required platform registration and basic post-facto monitoring, the Draft Law significantly expands the scope of responsibilities imposed on platform operators. Under the Draft Law, platforms must conduct identity verification for all sellers, including foreign sellers; however, the types of documents deemed legally sufficient for verifying foreign entities have not yet been clarified.

Furthermore, the Draft Law introduces the implementation of automated content moderation tools to screen seller-generated content prior to display, marking a notable advancement beyond the requirements of Decree 52. While the obligation to remove unlawful content within 24 hours upon request from competent authorities remains consistent with Decree 52, the Draft Law imposes additional responsibilities for proactive monitoring and enhanced compliance, particularly in light of heightened regulatory concerns regarding counterfeit goods and consumer protection.

Livestream and Affiliate Regulation: New Obligations to Fill Regulatory Gaps

Previously unregulated under Decree 52, livestream selling and affiliate marketing are now expressly addressed under the Draft Law. These provisions reflect growing regulatory concern over KOLs and influencers promoting products without clear origin and/supporting documentation.

While the new requirements are intended to improve transparency and strengthen consumer protection, they also introduce additional compliance burdens, not only for individual marketers, but also for platform operators. In particular, platforms must implement mechanisms to (i) warn users/viewers of content that is unsuitable for children and (ii) monitor livestream content in real time, enabling the removal of prohibited information and the termination of livestreams containing violating content.

Cross-Border Rules: From Local Presence to Legal Accountability

Under Decree 52, foreign e-commerce platforms targeting Vietnam via Vietnamese domain names, language interfaces, or a high volume of domestic transactions are required to register with the authorities and either establish a representative office or appoint an authorized local representative. While the existing regulations do not fully ensure enforcement against violating foreign platforms, this requirement ensured that authorities had a local point of contact.

The Draft Law retains these jurisdictional thresholds but introduces a significant shift. Accordingly, the appointed local entity is now subject to joint liability for the platform’s compliance with Vietnamese law. This change reflects the MOIT’s efforts to close enforcement loopholes, particularly in relation to counterfeit goods, consumer protection, and cross-border tax compliance.

Supporting Services: Strengthening Oversight Across the E-commerce Chain

Decree 52 made only general references to supporting services such as logistics and payment, without defining their legal responsibilities or integrating them into the compliance framework. The Draft Law takes a more structured approach by explicitly identifying four categories of supporting services: technical infrastructure, logistics, payment, and electronic contract authentication. Providers of these services are now subject to specific obligations, including coordination with platforms and regulators, and implementation of internal inspection and monitoring mechanisms.

This shift seems to reflect the MOIT’s growing concern that the lack of regulation over third-party service providers has contributed to the circulation of counterfeit goods and tax evasion. By formally incorporating these service providers into the compliance framework, the Draft Law aims to close enforcement gaps and strengthen accountability across the digital supply chain.

Algorithm Disclosure: A New Compliance Burden for Platforms

For the first time, the Draft Law introduces provisions requiring e-commerce platforms to disclose information about their algorithms, such as logic, design, and modeling, upon request by competent authorities during violation inspections. While intended to enhance transparency and prevent abuse, this requirement would raise significant concerns for platform operators. Specifically, algorithms are often a company’s core intellectual property developed through substantial investment, and the Draft Law has not yet addressed the scope, format, or confidentiality protections surrounding such disclosures.

Outlook

Compared to the current regime, the Draft Law reflects a more structured and expansive approach, touching not only on core platform activities but also on affiliated functions such as payment, logistics, livestreaming, and data handling. While several provisions await further clarification, the direction of the government is clear: Vietnam is moving toward a more comprehensive, compliance-driven model of digital commerce regulation. Businesses are thus recommended to proactively review how the new obligations may impact their structures, operations, and risk exposure. Companies that adapt early will be best positioned to navigate the transition smoothly and maintain regulatory confidence in an increasingly complex e-commerce environment.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or