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 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.