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

February 8, 2023

Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Decree Takes Important Step Toward Issuance

Subscribe to Updates

Government Approves Legislative Dossier

On February 7, 2023, the Vietnamese government issued Resolution No. 13/NQ-CP (“Resolution 13”) to approve the latest version of the draft Personal Data Protection Decree (“Draft PDPD”)—a draft which has not yet been made public.

Similar to Resolution No. 27/NQ-CP issued in March 2022 approving the previous version of the Draft PDPD (“Resolution 27”), Resolution 13 stipulates the different cases where data subjects’ consent is exempted for processing personal data. Most of these lawful bases are similar to those under Resolution 27—except for the fourth case, which is brand new—with some changes for better clarity.

According to Article 1 of Resolution 13, personal data can be processed without consent in the following five cases:

(1) The processing is to protect the life and health of the data subject or others in an emergency situation. Data Controllers, Data Processors, Parties Controlling and Processing Personal Data, and Third Parties are responsible for proving this case;

Remarks: Vietnamese law, including the prior published version of the Draft PDPD, has never used the terms “data controller”, “data processor,” and “parties controlling and processing personal data.” The inclusion of these terms suggests that the latest version of the Draft PDPD has adopted the GDPR-like concepts of “data controller” and “data processor.” However, until the latest version of the Draft PDPD can be assessed, it is uncertain how these concepts are defined and whether they are fully in line with GDPR definitions.

(2) The disclosure of personal data is in accordance with the law;

(3) The processing of data is performed by competent state agencies in the event of a state of emergency related to national defense, national security, social order and safety, major disaster, or dangerous epidemic; when there is a threat to security and national defense but not to the extent that a state of emergency must be declared; or when the processing is to prevent and combat riots and terrorism, crime, and law violations in accordance with law;

Remarks: This expands the list of situations where the data subject’s consent is exempted compared to a similar criterion in Resolution 27, which simply mentioned “national defense and security requirements.”

(4) The processing is to fulfill the contractual obligations of the data subject with relevant agencies, organizations, and individuals as prescribed by law;

Remarks: Under current legislation, consent is exempted when personal data is used for signing, modifying, or performing a contract to use information, products, and services in the network environment between the data subject and an IT/e-commerce trader/service provider. This basis for consent exemption is stipulated under the Information Technology Law and Decree 52 on E-Commerce.

This new basis under Resolution 13 has been broadened to include the processing of personal data for performing any types of contracts involving the data subject as a party. These contracts may include employment contracts and contracts for purchase of goods/services outside the IT/e-commerce context.

The Draft PDPD seems to have adopted the lawful basis under Article 6.1(b) of GDPR: “processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract.” Interestingly, the basis of processing for “legitimate interests of the controller or third party” under the GDPR does not appear in Resolution 13. As the Vietnamese legislator has always refused to adopt this basis into the Vietnamese data protection regime, it is unlikely to be covered by the Draft PDPD.

The wording of this newly added criterion is rather broad and subjective. It is unclear what could be considered necessary to “fulfill the contractual obligations,” and whether this criterion could be interpreted broadly enough to cover “legitimate interests” of the employer/service provider when implementing contractual obligations with data subjects.

If there is no further guidance on this criterion, we believe that it would be open to the authority’s discretion in interpretation and the arguments of the parties on a case-by-case basis.

(5) The processing is to serve the activities of state agencies prescribed by sector-specific laws.

Remarks: Resolution 27 included the criterion “the processing is for competent state agencies’ investigation and handling of law violations,” which has been removed from Resolution 13. It could be argued, however, that this criterion under Resolution 13 is sufficiently broad to cover the same cases.

Review by the National Assembly

Following the issuance of Resolution 13, on February 8, 2023, the National Assembly’s Committee for Defense and Security held a plenary meeting to review and discuss the newly approved Draft PDPD. According to media reports recapping the discussion, most of the delegates attending the meeting believed that this version of the Draft PDPD had been prepared quite thoroughly, with due consideration of opinions contributed by other state agencies and the public during the consultancy phase. However, given the significance of the PDPD, which covers novel issues that have rarely been tested in practice, the Draft PDPD was still subject to extensive comments from the delegates in the meeting, and possible further review by the Committee for Defense and Security.

What’s Next for the Draft PDPD?

Resolution 13 approves the content of the government’s report on the Draft PDPD, the report on collecting and considering opinions of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly, and the content of the latest version of the Draft PDPD; and assigns the Minister of Public Security, on behalf of the government, to report on and consult with the Standing Committee on the Draft PDPD. This means the resolution works as direction and approval of principles for key issues so that the Ministry of Public Security can complete the Draft PDPD for the Standing Committee’s approval before its eventual promulgation.

According to Article 2 of Resolution 13, as the next step, the Minister of Public Security will have to consult the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on the new version of the Draft PDPD. No specific timeline for promulgation has been announced. Following the review session by the Committee for Defense and Security, the Ministry of Public Security will need to consider the opinions of the delegates in the session and update the Draft PDPD accordingly, before submitting it to the Standing Committee.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More