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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require