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​ 

November 27, 2023
Thailand’s Electronic Transaction Development Agency (ETDA) has released two new subordinate regulations under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services: one detailing the assessment of digital platform services (DPSs) that will be deemed “high-risk” and subject to additional obligations, and another setting guidelines on user verification and authentication for all DPSs. The two subordinate regulations are summarized below. Impact Assessment of DPS Operations Under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services, DPS operations that have the risk of seriously impacting financial and commercial security, reliability and credibility of data message systems, or the general public are subject to additional obligations. The first subordinate regulation mentioned above (officially titled Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission Re: Criteria for Impact Assessment on Operation of Digital Platform Services) outlines the criteria for the ETDA to determine which DPSs are “high-risk.” DPSs falling under this designation include: DPSs whose total value of transactions conducted through the platform in Thailand exceeds THB 100 million (approx. USD 2.8 million) per year; DPSs whose operators have not registered their entities with the Department of Business Development (DBD)—notably overseas operators—and that have 100 or more merchants or business users in Thailand or total users in Thailand between 5 and 10 percent of the country’s population (i.e., approx. 3.3–6.1 million users, calculated using official 2022 figures); DPSs that allow their users to freely post certain messages, or do certain acts, that may affect the public in certain cases, such as: (1) unlawful messages or acts; (2) messages or acts that may affect a child’s rights or people’s fundamental rights; and (3) messages or acts that may negatively affect political opinions of Thai citizens (whether before or after an election) or statements or actions likely to negatively affect other individuals due to gender differences or sexual violence. After considering
Read More
November 23, 2023
On November 14, 2023, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a draft notification on collection of personal data regarding criminal records. The draft notification aims to provide clarifications and prescribe further criteria for processing criminal record data under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which generally requires the processing of criminal records to be carried out under the control of the relevant official authority under the law or under a data protection measure implemented according to rules prescribed by the PDPC. After its eventual passage, the draft notification will have important implications for businesses’ recruitment and human resources activities in relation to individuals with criminal records. Key aspects of the draft notification include the following: “Personal data regarding a criminal record” and “criminal record data” denote personal data related to the investigations of criminal offenses, criminal prosecution, or criminal punishment that is official information or certified by the relevant supervisory authority, regardless of whether that action is connected to a final judgment. Under the draft notification, data controllers may process criminal record data for the purpose of a recruitment process, checking the qualifications of personnel, and considering the suitability of a person for a position if the processing activities are required by law or when a data controller obtains explicit consent from the data subject. Furthermore, the necessity of processing the criminal record data must be announced at the beginning of the recruitment process. Data controllers’ requests for explicit consent to collect a data subject’s criminal record data must also notify the data subject of the consequences of not providing consent or withdrawing consent. The draft notification sets the allowable retention period for criminal record data at a maximum of six months from the end of the processing activities specified above. After the retention period ends, the criminal
Read More
November 17, 2023
On October 3, 2023, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) issued a new regulation clarifying the eligibility criteria for investment promotion under the BOI category “5.10 Development of software, platforms for digital services, or digital content.” To be eligible for BOI promotion under the digital activity category, projects must meet criteria related to local development, minimum investment amount, machinery and equipment, and development processes. These criteria for category 5.10 activities, along with the latest clarifications from the BOI, are detailed in the table below. Tax Incentives The BOI also clarified the method for calculating corporate income tax (CIT) exemptions. The CIT cap amount is calculated on an annual basis from the prescribed expenses incurred after applying for BOI promotion and occurring during the year for which the CIT exemption is claimed. The allowances include 100% of expenses for salaries for newly hired Thai IT personnel, technology-related training, and obtaining quality standards (such as ISO 29110). The revenue of projects that qualify for CIT exemption must be from sales or services directly related to software, platforms for digital services, or digital content developed as promoted by the BOI, including licensing fees, subscription fees, pay-per-use expenses, in-app purchase fees, usage fees, revenue sharing, advertising fees, and so on. For more details on BOI promotion for digital activities, or on any aspect of investment promotion in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected] or +66 2056 5600, Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected] or +66 2056 5662, or Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected] or +66 2056 5561.
Read More
November 15, 2023
Four decisions from the Expert Committee under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) indicate that there will no longer be any relaxation of PDPA enforcement. The enforcement of Thailand’s seminal data protection law had been relaxed for more than a year when, on October 18, 2023, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published the first decision made by the Expert Committee on the imposition of administrative measures against a company pursuant to authority granted to it under the Notification of the PDPC Re: Rules for the Consideration of the Imposition of Administrative Penalties by the Expert Committee B.E. 2565 (2022), which was one of the first subordinate regulations issued under the PDPA. Shortly thereafter, on October 19, October 25, and November 15, three additional Expert Committee decisions were published. These three decisions made by the Expert Committee are summarized below. October 18 Decision The complainant in this case lodged a complaint with the Expert Committee alleging that an insurance company contacted him to offer the company’s products without his consent. The complaint further claimed that when the complainant requested the company to disclose how his personal data had been acquired and asked the company to stop contacting him through any channel, the company did not take any action on the requests. The insurance company appeared to have obtained the personal data of the complainant from another source prior to the PDPA becoming fully effective (i.e., June 1, 2022). As the Expert Committee explained in its order, the company failed to comply with its obligations under the PDPA regarding the collection of personal data from another source, which requires consent as a legal basis; failed to comply with the grandfather provision by not publicizing opt-out procedures to enable the data subject to withdraw his consent easily; and
Read More