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​ 

August 21, 2025
On August 19, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released its draft Guidelines on the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices and Conduct Constituting Monopoly, Reducing Competition, or Restricting Competition in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses in the Category of Digital Platforms for the Sale of Goods or Services (E-commerce). A public comment period on the guidelines is open until September 18. The draft provides the first detailed framework for how the TCCT will interpret and enforce the substantive provisions under the Trade Competition Act against digital platforms, which have a unique network effect and require complex competition analysis. This development will profoundly impact the operations of e-commerce platforms, sellers, and associated service providers in Thailand. The guidelines primarily target e-commerce digital platform business operators, which are defined as follows: E-commerce digital platform: A medium facilitating the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions between business operators via an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether service fees are charged. E-commerce digital platform business operator: A service provider of a digital platform for the sale of goods or services who acts as an intermediary facilitating the sale of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions through an electronic transaction system by receiving orders for goods or services transacted via an electronic system, whether in the form of an e-marketplace, a social marketplace, or any other form that connects purchase orders for goods or services with business operators through an electronic system. Prohibited Conduct The guidelines classify potentially anticompetitive conduct and unfair trade practices into two categories: price-related and non-price-related conduct. 1. Price-related conduct The TCCT is targeting pricing strategies that can harm competition. Key prohibited behaviors include: Price below cost: Setting prices below the average total cost without
August 21, 2025
On August 18, 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance, the Anti-Money Laundering Office, and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports, announced the launch of TouristDigiPay. The initiative, implemented under the SEC’s Regulatory Sandbox, allows foreign tourists to convert digital assets into Thai baht for use in everyday transactions in Thailand. Foreign tourists who opt to participate in TouristDigiPay must open two accounts once they are in Thailand: An account with a licensed digital asset operator to sell or exchange digital assets for Thai baht; and A tourist wallet account with a licensed e-money operator regulated by the Bank of Thailand. Funds from digital asset sales will be transferred into the tourist wallet, enabling tourists to make payments at participating merchants that accept e-money. Key Regulatory Requirements The TouristDigiPay project will operate for a period of up to 18 months, with the following conditions: Only licensed digital asset brokers, dealers, and exchanges integrated with licensed e-money operators are eligible to participate. Operators must implement anti-money laundering (AML) protocols that are proportionate to the assessed risk level. These include: Conducting know-your-customer and customer-due-diligence (KYC/CDD) checks on all users. For monthly transactions exceeding THB 50,000 per person, verifying the source of the digital assets and assessing AML risk using internationally recognized blockchain forensic tools or equivalent procedures. Suspending or rejecting services if digital assets are transferred from wallets flagged for AML concerns. Ensuring that conversion between digital assets and fiat includes safeguards such as matching account names and returning digital assets only to the original wallet. The following transaction limits apply to participants in the TouristDigiPay initiative: Payments to small vendors are capped at THB 50,000 per month. Payments to vendors who have completed the know-your-merchant (KYM) process are capped at THB 500,000 per
August 6, 2025
Thailand’s Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) has released drafts of two pivotal documents to guide Thai government agencies in adopting cloud technology and classifying data for cloud usage. These draft guidelines, open for public hearing through August 12, 2025, are part of the national “Go Cloud First” policy, which aims to accelerate digital transformation, improve efficiency, and ensure robust data security across the public sector. The new standards will have significant implications for both government agencies and cloud service providers operating in Thailand. Highlights of the draft guidelines are presented below. Government Cloud Usage Guidelines Cloud-first transformation: All government agencies are directed to prioritize cloud solutions for new IT projects, in line with the cabinet’s “Go Cloud First” policy. Cloud model selection: Agencies must assess their needs and select the most appropriate cloud deployment model—public, private, hybrid, or community cloud—based on the sensitivity of the data and operational requirements. Service types: The guidelines provide criteria for choosing between Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS), emphasizing the importance of using standard, non-customized services where possible. Cost management: Agencies are required to plan and separate cloud-related expenses, ensuring transparency and efficient budget allocation. Cloud migration: The guidelines outline the steps for migrating to the cloud and highlight the role of cloud service providers in facilitating the process, including supporting innovation and enabling smooth exit strategies. Procurement compliance: All cloud procurement must comply with public sector procurement laws and regulations. Only providers meeting government-mandated standards can be selected. Security and shared responsibility: The guidelines clarify the division of security responsibilities between cloud providers and government agencies. While providers manage infrastructure security, agencies remain responsible for data, application, and access controls. Legal framework: Agencies must comply with the Digital Government Administration Act, Cybersecurity
August 1, 2025
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) announced to the press on August 1, 2025, that it had issued eight new administrative fines under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) in five cases of noncompliance by public and private entities. The enforcement actions reflect a growing commitment by the PDPC to penalize noncompliance across all sectors, regardless of organizational type or size. The total amount imposed to date was approximately THB 21.5 million (approx. USD 654,690), underscoring the financial risks tied to PDPA violations. The five cases—one involving a state agency and the remainder in the private sector—are summarized below. Case 1: State Agency Providing Online Services to the Public The order in this case stemmed from a cyberattack on a state agency’s web app, resulting in personal data of 200,000 data subjects being leaked to and sold on the dark web. The software developer was also found to have implemented no privacy by design, lacked an access control system, had no data breach prevention measures, and failed to conduct risk assessments or review existing security measures. Key noncompliance identified: Lack of appropriate security measures Weak password protection No risk assessment or ongoing review of security measures No data processing agreement with software developer that acted as data processor The state agency and the developer were each fined THB 153,120 (approx. USD 4,670). Case 2: Private Hospital This case involved a hospital that engaged an individual contractor to destroy patient medical record documents. However, the contractor stored the documents at their own premises, failed to follow the required destruction protocols, and ultimately used the medical records to wrap sweets, resulting in the leak of over 1,000 records during the destruction process. The contractor also failed to notify the hospital of the data breach. Although there was a