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​ 

May 26, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published a press release signaling heightened regulation of digital platforms in response to the influx of products from foreign countries being sold in Thailand via e-commerce platforms. In recent years, the rapid expansion of cross-border multi-sided e-commerce platforms has unlocked unprecedented growth, but it has also flooded Thailand’s digital marketplaces with low-cost imports sold by unregulated foreign vendors via these platforms, unfairly undercutting local merchants’ market share and exposing consumers to uneven product quality. According to the press release, the TCCT announced progress on drafting new guidelines on unfair trade practices, monopolistic conduct, and competition restraint by multi-sided e-commerce platforms at a recent meeting of the Management Committee for Addressing Issues of Foreign Goods and Businesses Violating Laws. This regulatory push is part of a broader governmental effort to tackle issues stemming from the foregoing that create uneven playing fields and undermine consumer welfare. The draft guidelines are designed to regulate platform operators and their complex and multidimensional trade relations that cause network effects and distort competition. The forthcoming guidelines, to be issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), will undergo public consultation to ensure platform operators, the public, and other stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input before they are finalized and enforced. The guidelines are seen as an important priority, with the minister of commerce urging swift implementation of the measures to achieve the government’s objectives. In addition to the legislative advancement, one of the TCCT commissioners has been appointed to advise a subcommittee on preventing nominee arrangements by foreign investors and a subcommittee dedicated to promoting Thai SMEs and eliminating poor-quality imports. The appointee will also support the nationwide task force against illegal foreign products in overseeing proactive field operations and comprehensive
Read More
May 22, 2025
While digital technologies have significantly enhanced communication and information sharing, they have also created new opportunities for misuse, particularly for children, who are especially vulnerable to online abuse and exploitation. These risks are often difficult for parents and guardians to detect or prevent in a timely manner. To address these concerns, Thailand has drafted an amendment to the Criminal Code to introduce new provisions targeting offenses against children committed via online platforms. The objective is to close existing legal gaps and to provide more robust protections for children in the digital environment. The draft amendment focuses primarily on addressing online offenses against children and enhancing legal protections for children. The draft amendment proposed changes regarding the following issues: Jurisdiction and media misuse Expanding Thailand’s jurisdiction to cover sexual and liberty-related offenses committed against children outside the country. Adding offenses for misuse of media, including recording, publishing, or transmitting text, images, or sounds for unlawful or exploitative purposes. Offenses involving child exploitation Adding penalties for persuading, luring, or enticing children to engage in sexual or indecent conduct. Imposing harsher penalties for aggravated cases relating to child exploitation that result in serious harm or death. Adding penalties for sending or forwarding inappropriate sexual content to children with exploitative intent. Adding penalties for using threats involving sexual conduct to pressure or coerce victims. Removing ignorance of a child’s age as a possible defense for certain offenses (e.g., luring children or sending inappropriate content) when the child is under 13 years old. Special protections for vulnerable individuals Imposing harsher penalties for offenses committed against parents, persons under legal guardianship or parental authority, or individuals unable to protect themselves. Adding penalties to offenses such as luring children, sending inappropriate content, and cases involving serious harm or death. Child pornography Increasing liability for possession and
Read More
May 15, 2025
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) held an explanatory session on the draft principles and regulatory approaches of the country’s planned artificial intelligence (AI) law on May 2, 2025. This came after a lull of two years following the initial release of draft legislation on AI. In the session, the ETDA explained that the earlier drafts were modeled after the EU’s legal framework for AI, but given the evolving Thai legal and technological landscape, it is now necessary to revisit and refine the drafts to ensure they remain relevant and effective in the local context. To aid in this process, the ETDA will accept public comments on the draft principles of the AI law until June 9, 2025. Based on gap analysis and a comparative study of how different countries have addressed AI issues, the ETDA’s draft AI law principles are structured into five key areas. These are described below. 1. Risk-Based Requirements The draft principles outline a set of approaches that the legislation will take toward mitigating risk: Delegation of powers to enforcement agency or sectoral regulators The primary legislation will not directly specify a list of prohibited risks or high-risk types of AI. Instead, it will empower an enforcement agency or relevant sectoral regulators to determine and issue such lists. This approach allows regulators in each specific industry to assess the necessity of risk classifications within their respective sectors, based on the principle that sectoral regulators are best positioned to understand the specific risks in their domains. These regulators are expected to issue subordinate legislation in alignment with the overall framework. Meanwhile, the central enforcement agency will coordinate oversight across sectors and cover areas not under the jurisdiction of any specific regulator. Duties of high-risk AI providers Providers of AI deemed by the enforcement agency or sectoral
Read More
May 14, 2025
Following the amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in mid-April 2025, new measures were introduced by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) in a hearing session held on May 13, 2025, to establish shared liability between online social media platform operators and other in-scope operators for damages arising from technological crimes. Stakeholders are being invited to submit their comments on the proposed new provisions directly to the ETDA by May 20, 2025. The concept of the new measures for social media platform operators is that to be released from liability for damages arising from technological crimes, social media platform operators must demonstrate compliance with the relevant technological crime prevention standards and measures prescribed by their respective regulators (“safe harbor rules”). Safe Harbor Rules Under the principles of the proposed safe harbor rules, social media platform operators and the relevant service providers would be required to comply with the following obligations: Immediate takedown and suspension of dissemination: Disable access, remove the content from the system, or suspend the relevant service within 24 hours of receiving an official notification from the Cyber Crime Investigation Bureau’s Anti-Online Scam Operation Center (AOC) that a service or social media platform is disseminating content that is or may be used to commit or support technological crimes. Establishment of notification channels: Establish a system or channel to receive notifications from the AOC. User registration and identity verification: Require user registration (including identity verification and authentication) before allowing content to be posted, with sufficient information to identify the user. Suspending dissemination of suspect advertisements: Disable access to advertisements reasonably suspected of involving or potentially involving the commission of technology-related crimes. Reporting: Report on actions taken, including details like account owner information, IP address, email, or phone number used for account
Read More