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 27, 2025

Vietnam’s New Personal Data Protection Law: A Closer Look

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam officially enacted Law No. 91/2025/QH15 on Personal Data Protection (“PDPL”) on June 26, 2025, marking a major milestone in the country’s legal landscape. While the PDPL retains many provisions from its predecessor, Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (“PDPD”), it adds new concepts, exemptions, and compliance obligations. Notably, it sets out a framework regulation for penalties for violations, including monetary fines of up to 5% of the corporate violator’s annual revenue in the previous year for cross-border data transfer breaches.

With an effective date of January 1, 2026, the PDPL will apply to (i) Vietnamese agencies, organizations, and individuals; (ii) foreign agencies, organizations, and individuals in Vietnam; and (iii) foreign agencies, organizations, and individuals directly involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and persons of Vietnamese origin without a determined nationality, currently residing in Vietnam, who have been granted a personal identification certificate.

Although the PDPL does not explicitly define its relationship with the currently effective PDPD, the government is drafting a new decree to guide the PDPL’s implementation, the first draft of which is expected to be completed by September 2025, with an effective date aligned with that of the PDPL. Once both the PDPL and its implementing decree come into force, the PDPD will presumably cease to have legal effect. [Update: Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP detailing and guiding the implementation of the PDPL was issued on December 31, 2025, and took effect on January 1, 2026. See our article here.]

Some key takeaways from the PDPL are presented below.

1. Definitions of “Personal Data,” “Basic Personal Data,” and “Sensitive Personal Data”

The PDPL introduces broad definitions for “personal data,” “basic personal data,” and “sensitive personal data.” It expands the scope of personal data to include both digital and non-digital formats, such as paper-based records. Notably, de-identified personal data is explicitly excluded from the definition of personal data. The PDPL further delegates authority to the government to issue exhaustive lists specifying which types of data qualify as basic and sensitive personal data. These lists are expected to be detailed in the PDPL’s implementing decree.

2. Data Subjects’ Rights and Obligations

The PDPL retains the rights of data subjects as previously outlined in the PDPD, with clarifications of the rights themselves and certain strengthened procedural requirements. In addition to the data subjects’ rights, the PDPL imposes specific obligations on data subjects, including the obligations to:

  • Self-protect their own personal data;
  • Honor and protect others’ personal data;
  • Provide adequate and accurate personal data according to applicable laws and regulations, contracts, or consent given to the processing of their own personal data; and
  • Comply with the personal data protection laws and regulations and participate in the prevention of personal data infringements/violations.

These provisions are designed to prevent misuse of personal data rights and promote a culture of shared responsibility in the digital environment, while reinforcing individuals’ control over their own data.

3. Personal Data Trading and Transfer

The PDPL strictly prohibits the sale and purchase of personal data, except as otherwise prescribed by the law. This prohibition is part of a broader effort to combat the widespread illegal online trading of personal data and prevent insider abuse. Violations of this provision may result in severe penalties, including fines of up to 10 times the revenue gained from the unlawful act of personal data trading.

The PDPL provides clarification, however, that certain types of data transfers do not constitute the “sale and purchase of personal data.” These include:

  • When the data subject has given consent.
  • When data is shared between departments within the same agency or organization for processing in line with the determined purpose.
  • When data is transferred for continued processing due to the division, separation, or merger of agencies, organizations, or administrative units; the reorganization or transformation of ownership of state-owned enterprises; the division, separation, merger, consolidation, or dissolution of entities or organizations; or the establishment of entities or organizations based on the dissolution of other entities or organizations.
  • When the data controllers or data controller-processors transfer data to a data processor or third party (e.g., independent data controllers) for processing as prescribed.
  • Upon request from competent state authorities.
  • In circumstances where personal data can be processed without the data subjects’ consent as prescribed under the PDPL (see item 5 below).

These exceptions are expected to be further detailed in the PDPL’s implementing decree.

4. Maximum Administrative Sanctions for Violations

In addition to the maximum fine for illegal personal data trading, the PDPL sets the maximum administrative fine on an organization for violations related to cross-border personal data transfers at 5% of the violator’s revenue in the preceding fiscal year. In cases where the organization has no revenue in the preceding year, or where the fine calculated based on such revenue is lower than VND 3 billion (approx. USD 114,500), the latter will apply. The maximum administrative fine for other violations in the field of personal data protection is VND 3 billion. The method to calculate revenue arising from violation of personal data protection regulations will be further prescribed by the government under the PDPL’s implementing decree.

5. Consent Requirements

The consent-centric approach and strict consent formality requirements of the PDPD are maintained in the PDPL, which provides additional cases of consent-exemptions. These include, among others, situations where personal data processing is necessary to protect one’s own legitimate rights or interests, or those of others, as necessary against acts that infringe upon such interests (e.g., legal defense), and the fulfillment of contractual obligations not only of the data subjects but also of the service provider.

While the PDPL uses the term “legitimate interest,” its scope is significantly narrower than under the GDPR, and applies only when data processing is required to prevent infringement by third parties.

For situations where consent is exempted, the PDPL introduces a requirement for the data controllers and relevant data processors to implement a monitoring mechanism to protect the data, including but not limited to implementing appropriate data protection measures and regularly assessing possible risks, periodically inspecting and assessing compliance with the law, and receiving and addressing feedback and petitions from relevant parties.

The PDPL includes a transition clause allowing personal data processing activities that have been carried out prior to the effective date of the PDPL with the consent of the data subject or based on an agreement in accordance with the PDPD, to continue, without requiring new consent or a new agreement. This provision offers continuity for businesses already compliant with the PDPD, while signaling the need for updated practices that align with the PDPL’s enhanced standards.

6. Data Processing and Data Transfer Impact Assessment

The requirements for the preparation, submission, and maintenance of a Data Processing Impact Assessment (“DPIA”) and a Data Transfer Impact Assessment (“TIA”) under the PDPD are inherited by the PDPL. The PDPL has assigned the government to provide detailed requirements on the dossier, conditions, order, and procedures for each impact assessment in the PDPL’s implementing decree. However, it is anticipated that these requirements will generally align with those outlined in the PDPD.

To reduce the compliance burden, the PDPL makes it optional for small businesses and startups to comply with the DPIA requirements for five years from the PDPL’s effective date, while household businesses and micro-enterprises are exempt. However, entities that provide personal data processing services, directly process sensitive personal data, or process the personal data of a large number of data subjects are not eligible for this exemption.

The PDPL mandates a six-month update cycle for both the DPIA and the TIA if there are any changes. Immediate updates are required in specific circumstances, such as (i) company restructuring, termination, dissolution, or bankruptcy; (ii) change of organization or individual providing personal data protection services; or (iii) introduction of new business lines/activities or changes to the current business lines/activities involving personal data as declared in the DPIA and TIA.

DPIAs and TIAs received by the Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention Department under the Ministry of Public Security (known as the “A05” department) before the PDPL’s effective date (i.e., January 1, 2026) in accordance with the PDPD will remain valid. However, any updates made to these dossiers made after the PDPL comes into force must comply with the requirements set out under the PDPL.

7. Notification of Violations

One of the key changes introduced by the PDPL is the revised timeline for notification of detected violations. Organizations are now required to report violations within 72 hours of detection, rather than from the time of occurrence as previously mandated under the PDPD. Moreover, while the PDPD only requires notification to the regulator (specifically, the A05), the PDPL expands this obligation to include notifying affected data subjects in cases involving biometric data incidents or incidents related to financial service providers.

8. Special Personal Data Protection Mechanisms

Some special data protection mechanisms are introduced under the PDPL, as follows:

For specific data subject groups: The PDPL sets out enhanced and more comprehensive safeguards for the personal data of vulnerable groups, such as children and individuals with limited or lost civil act capacity, or those with cognitive or behavioral impairments. For instance, the processing of children’s data generally requires only parental consent. However, if the data pertains to the child’s private life or personal secrets, and the child is age 7 or older, dual consent from both the child and the parent must be obtained.

For specific businesses and operational activities: The PDPL outlines tailored safeguards for personal data processing activities across various sectors and operational activities, including employment (recruitment and employee management); health data and insurance business; financial, banking, and credit information activities; advertising services; social network platforms and online communications services; big data processing, artificial intelligence, blockchain, virtual universe and cloud computing; and audio and video recording in public places and public activities. While some provisions are sector-specific, some can be generally applied to all enterprises; for instance, the requirement for deletion/destruction of information provided by job applicants who are not hired, unless there is a different agreement with the applicant.

For specific types of sensitive personal data: Specific safeguards required for processing location and biometric data are also prescribed under the PDPL.

9. Personal Data Protection Department and Personnel

The PDPL requires organizations to either designate a qualified department and personnel dedicated to personal data protection, or engage external data protection service providers. Such personal data protection departments, personnel, and service providers are components of what the PDPL refers to as the “personal data protection forces.”

While the government has yet to issue detailed regulations on “personal data protection forces,” further guidance on the conditions, responsibilities, and tasks of the designated data protection department and personnel are expected in the PDPL’s implementing decree.

Small and startup enterprises are granted a five-year grace period from the PDPL’s effective date to determine whether to comply, while household businesses and micro-enterprises are exempted from this requirement (save for cases where these entities provide personal data processing services, directly process sensitive personal data, or process the personal data of a large number of data subjects).

Outlook

The promulgation of the PDPL represents a major advancement in Vietnam’s legal landscape, reinforcing the existing data protection framework for better safeguarding the privacy and personal rights of Vietnamese citizens in the digital era, and at the same time promoting the digital economy and international integration in the country. Businesses will need to reevaluate and consolidate their data governance practices and internal controls to ensure prompt and effective PDPL compliance. It is also important for businesses to keep an eye on upcoming regulations and guidance to properly implement the PDPL.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
Read More
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More