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​ 

August 31, 2023
When your company suffers a data breach, taking prudent, careful action can limit and perhaps even rectify some of the damage. First of all, it is important to document everything, starting with the time the data breach was discovered. Secure the data systems and preserve all evidence so that investigators can determine what happened, and begin following the protocol that all companies handling personal data should have in place to guide their data breach response. It is also crucial to seek timely legal assistance to ensure that every aspect of the response is planned and carried out according to the law. While applicable legal advice for each situation can only be obtained by consulting a legal advisor, this guide gives an overview of what companies in Southeast Asian jurisdictions can expect if they suffer a data breach. This guide from Tilleke & Gibbins is a quick-reference resource covering key regulatory issues regarding data breach responses in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. The full guide can be downloaded through the button below.
Read More
August 23, 2023
Introduction The idea of the metaverse rose to prominence in the public discourse in 2021, most notably when Facebook renamed itself Meta and announced a new focus on launching a virtual, immersive world. The initial excitement around the metaverse has since faded, with worsening economic conditions having a particularly acute effect on companies in the technology sector. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in March 2023 that artificial intelligence (AI) was the company’s “single largest investment,” many took this as a sign of the company shifting focus away from the metaverse. However, there remains significant interest in the metaverse from both businesses and consumers. Zuckerberg himself reaffirmed Meta’s focus on the metaverse, highlighting how developments in AI will improve virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology. Meanwhile, Roblox, a metaverse gaming platform, announced that in Q1 2023, its number of daily active users had increased to 66 million. Most recently, the announcement by Apple of its new ‘Vision Pro’ AR headset is reported to have renewed interest in the metaverse among developers. A particular area of interest in the developing metaverse is digital fashion and retail. In its Metaverse Fashion Trends Report 2022, Roblox found that nearly three in four users aged 14 to 24 spend money on digital fashion items. Roblox itself has partnered with fashion brands Burberry, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, and others, to offer experiences and items for use on the platform. In March 2023, Decentraland, a metaverse platform with a decentralized governance structure, hosted the Metaverse Fashion Week, featuring brands such as Adidas, Coach, and DKNY. As businesses continue to invest and look for opportunities to expand into the metaverse, whether through traditional e-commerce or more innovative digital asset offerings, it is important that they consider the ways in which new and existing laws apply
Read More
August 22, 2023
On August 17, 2023, the Thai government rolled out a royal decree that provides certain exemptions to data controllers’ obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (PDPA). The royal decree, which will come into effect after the lapse of 150 days from its publication in the Government Gazette, reflects the government’s ongoing quest to strike a balance between privacy, state interests, and the data protection regulatory burden on organizations. The royal decree seeks to clarify the circumstances in which data controllers—including business operators and state agencies—are exempt from certain PDPA requirements on the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and data subject rights. In doing so, it establishes three foundational pillars in considering exemptions: Collection or requests for personal data are to be for the public interest pursuant to the purpose and scope prescribed by any law authorizing a state agency to carry out a certain action, without imposing an undue burden on the data controller responsible for disclosing the personal information. Data controllers can share personal data without the data subject’s consent if legally authorized state agencies request it and specify the statutory provisions granting authority to request the data. Data subjects and data controllers of requested personal data must have the right to submit complaints to the PDPA’s Expert Committee or seek its expertise for clarification or determination. Under the three foundational pillars, data controllers will be partially exempted from certain requirements under the PDPA when the following state agencies request personal data: The National Anti-Corruption Commission or other government entities with mandates aligned with anticorruption laws; The Revenue Department, Customs Department, Excise Department, or other governmental units operating under taxation laws; Local governmental bodies recognized by the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), or any government unit with mandates as per the laws related
Read More
July 31, 2023
On July 13, 2023, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a draft notification on the requirements for appointment of a data protection officer (DPO). Under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (PDPA), data controllers or data processors must appoint a DPO if: The data controller or data processor is a state agency as prescribed by the PDPC (the list of state agencies was published in the Government Gazette on July 18, 2023); The activities of the data controller or data processor in relation to the processing of the personal data require “regular monitoring of the personal data or the system,” by reason of “having large-scale personal data” as prescribed by the PDPC; or The core activity of the data controller or data processor is related to the processing of special categories of personal data (e.g., health-related data, biometric data, etc.). The draft notification’s criteria for determining whether a processing activity (1) requires regular monitoring of the personal data or the system, and (2) involves large-scale personal data are outlined below. General Principles When determining whether processing of personal data requires regular monitoring due to having large-scale personal data, it is likely that only the “core activity” of the data controller or data processor is to be taken into consideration. The term “core activity” denotes an essential and integral activity directly related to the primary operations of the data controller or data processor and does not include any supplementary business activities. Regular Monitoring of Personal Data or Systems According to the draft notification, activities related to processing personal data require regular monitoring of the personal data or the system if: The core part of the data controller’s or data processor’s activities consists of tracking, monitoring, analyzing, or predicting the behavior, attitude, or profile of individuals; and These activities
Read More