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 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
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More