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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More