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​ 

April 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More