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​ 

September 11, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published a new five-year master plan that will bring significant regulatory changes to the broadcasting and digital media sectors, including formal licensing requirements for internet-based audiovisual services. The Master Plan for Broadcasting and Television, 3rd Edition (B.E. 2569–2573/2026–2030) was published in the Government Gazette on September 1, 2026, and will affect OTT platforms, internet-based audiovisual service providers, and traditional broadcasters. Licensing Reform The NBTC will develop new licensing frameworks ahead of existing digital television license expirations, which are slated to occur between 2028 and 2030. This creates both uncertainty and opportunity for incumbents and new market entrants. New licensing criteria will also be developed for audiovisual services delivered over the internet, meaning previously unregulated internet-based providers may face licensing, fee, and content obligations for the first time. The plan also calls for a new law to govern converged communications services. OTT Regulation and Content Oversight The plan explicitly acknowledges and aims to lessen the regulatory asymmetry between traditional broadcasters—which are subject to licensing, fees, and content regulation—and internet-based services that currently face fewer obligations. The NBTC intends to develop regulatory frameworks to bring internet-based audiovisual services, including OTT platforms, streaming services, and user-generated content platforms, under content, consumer protection, and licensing requirements. Consumer Protection and Digital Rights The NBTC will strengthen its oversight of broadcasting, television, and telecommunications operators to ensure compliance with consumer protection and personal data protection requirements. This includes updating relevant notifications and orders and more strictly enforcing rules against practices that unfairly exploit consumers. These measures may layer NBTC-specific requirements on top of Thailand’s existing Personal Data Protection Act obligations. Stricter enforcement against practices that exploit consumers is a priority, with particular scrutiny on advertising practices. The NBTC will modernize complaint resolution processes, meaning service providers should
Read More
September 7, 2026
On September 4, 2026, Thailand’s prime minister convened the first meeting of the Data Center Business Policy Committee. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework for the data center industry and tasked four subcommittees with developing the standards that would sit beneath it, shifting away from fragmented, agency-by-agency approvals toward a unified national strategy aiming to maximize economic value while managing environmental and infrastructure concerns. Proposed Scope and Pillars of the National Data Center Policy Framework The proposed framework would cover all types of data centers, including internal or captive facilities operated within a company or its affiliates, rather than only commercial third-party providers. If adopted in this form, companies running private data centers purely for internal purposes would also become subject to regulatory oversight. Minimum safety and operational standards would be established, with uniform enforcement across all categories. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework with four key pillars: Industrial classification: Data centers exceeding 2 MW would be classified as industrial operations, which may require factory licenses and environmental impact assessments under the Factory Act. Resource pricing: Utility rates would be structured to reflect both direct and indirect costs, supporting green energy and green data center standards. Centralized screening: A centralized review would evaluate project suitability and resource allocation. Operators may be required to submit proposals through periodic “pitching” rounds, where projects are competitively assessed on their potential economic and strategic benefits to Thailand. Digital ecosystem: The framework would prioritize data sovereignty, tax incentives, and conditions promoting domestic digital businesses, AI, and cloud infrastructure. Multidimensional Evaluation Criteria and Subcommittees Four subcommittees will be established to develop standards responsible for the following dimensions: Economic: Criteria for assessing the economic viability of data center projects, for use in prioritizing data centers based on infrastructure readiness, demand type (including AI factories),
Read More
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
Read More
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
Read More