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

September 8, 2022

What Do Vietnam’s New Data Localization Requirements Mean for Domestic Enterprises?

Subscribe to Updates

While much attention has been paid to the data localization requirements for foreign enterprises under Vietnam’s 2018 Cybersecurity Law (“CSL”) and the recently issued Decree 53 guiding its implementation, the corresponding requirements for domestic enterprises are often overlooked, despite being potentially more troublesome.

Under Decree 53, “domestic enterprises” are defined to mean enterprises established or registered for establishment under Vietnamese law and having their head offices in Vietnam (Article 2.11), so this designation includes not only Vietnamese companies, but foreign-invested enterprises as well.

Background

Before analyzing the stipulations in Articles 26 and 27 of Decree 53 further guiding the data localization/storage requirements, it is worth restating the very problematic Article 26.3 of the CSL, which reads:

“Domestic and foreign enterprises providing services on telecommunication networks or the internet or value-added services in cyberspace in Vietnam with activities of collecting, exploiting, analyzing, and/or* processing personal information data, data on the relationships of service users, or data generated by service users in Vietnam must store such data in Vietnam for the period prescribed by the government. Foreign enterprises mentioned in this clause must open branches or representative offices in Vietnam.”

[* Note: The Vietnamese text simply uses a comma here, without specifying whether this should be “and” or “or,” leading to additional problems in interpretation.]

Because of this very broad and ambiguous wording, Article 26.3 of the CSL required further guidance from the government and remained unenforced for more than three years after the CSL took effect on January 1, 2019. Decree 53 guiding the implementation of the CSL was finally issued on August 15, 2022, and provides additional clarity on this matter. But does Decree 53 provide sufficient guidelines for implementation with regard to domestic enterprises?

Scope of Application

With regard to foreign enterprises, although there remains some ambiguity, Decree 53 provides clearer guidelines by specifying 10 types of services (the “regulated services”) that are subject to the data localization requirements, as well as the triggering conditions that lead to foreign enterprises being required to store regulated data and establish a branch or representative office in Vietnam. Decree 53 even covers cases where a foreign enterprise is unable to comply with a decision of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) due to force majeure reasons. Please see our previous article for a detailed discussion.

With regard to domestic enterprises, Article 26.2 of Decree 53 simply sets out that “domestic enterprises must store the [regulated data as defined in Article 26.1] in Vietnam,” raising concerns as to what exactly is the true intention of the drafter.

This intention could be interpreted in several ways:

  1. The drafter wishes to cover all domestic enterprises (i.e., every company incorporated in and operating in Vietnam, regardless of industry or sector);
  2. The drafter wishes to cover all domestic enterprises “providing services on telecommunication networks or the internet or value-added services in cyberspace in Vietnam collecting, exploiting, analyzing, and/or processing personal information data, data on the relationships of service users, or data generated by service users in Vietnam,” as provided by Article 26.3 of the CSL, without any triggering conditions; or
  3. The drafter additionally wants to limit the services of domestic enterprises to the 10 regulated service types for foreign enterprises, with the same triggering conditions, to afford equal treatment between domestic enterprises and foreign enterprises. (Obviously, the scope of application in the first two interpretations would lead to differential treatment.)

Interpretation (1) is the broadest coverage and would significantly widen the scope of the CSL. In theory, according to the hierarchy of law and sub-laws in Vietnam, this is not legal. In practice, we have seen the authorities enforce stricter requirements found in subordinate legislation, instead of the broad requirements under the primary law. However, in our opinion, this intention is the least likely.

Interpretation (2) is the strictly “legal” interpretation, and the most likely intention of the drafter because Decree 53 was issued to implement certain articles of the CSL – Article 26.3 in this case. However, if interpretation (2) is the true intention of the drafter, the scope of coverage remains extremely broad and unclear, and may need further clarification from the MPS.

If the intention of the drafter is to treat domestic enterprises and foreign enterprises equally – i.e., interpretation (3) – then the drafting technique is flawed, because by not specifying the 10 regulated types of services and the triggering conditions for domestic enterprises, Article 26 of Decree 53 is not drafted in a way to support this intention.

Without further clarification from the MPS, interpretation (2) is the most likely intention; however, it could be argued that this clause thus covers all types of online services for domestic enterprises that collect, use, analyze, and/or process regulated data. Why would this be so?

Article 26.3 of the CSL specifies three types of services – “services on telecommunication networks”; “services on the internet”; and “value-added services in cyberspace” – without further explanation or definition, leaving it up to Decree 53 to define these services:

  • “Services on telecommunication networks means telecommunication services and telecommunication application services as prescribed by law” (Article 2.6 of Decree 53). Telecom law defines telecommunication application services to mean “services using telecom transmission lines or telecom networks to provide application services in the sectors of information technology, radio, television, commerce, finance, culture, information, medical health, education, and other sectors.” The notable inclusion of “other sectors” could be interpreted as a “catch-all” term, leading to the possibility that it could cover all sectors/services provided on telecom/internet networks. (The internet network is a type of telecom network.)
  • “Services on the internet means internet services and services providing content on the internet as prescribed by law” (Article 2.7 of Decree 53). The concept of “services providing content on the internet” is not defined and is very broad. Arguably, without definition, such services could be interpreted to include online news, online consulting, online advertising, video on demand, OTT television services, online games, social networks, etc., leading to an extremely broad scope of application.
  • “Value-added services in cyberspace means value-added telecommunication services as prescribed by law” (Article 2.8 of Decree 53).

Therefore, with regard to domestic enterprises, it could be said that if there is no further guidance or clarification from the MPS, all online service providers which collect, use, analyze, and/or process regulated data are required to store the regulated data in Vietnam.

Form of Data Storage

Under Article 26.5 of Decree 53, the form of data storage in Vietnam is to be decided by the enterprises. However, what is sufficient to be considered as “storing data in Vietnam” is still very ambiguous.

As technology has evolved, cloud storage has become a very popular method for both domestic and foreign enterprises to store data. Is it sufficient to store data “in the cloud” if the cloud infrastructure is not located in Vietnam but is accessible via a computer in Vietnam? Or does the data need to be stored in a computer/server or cloud infrastructure that is physically located in Vietnam? Does the original regulated data have to be stored in Vietnam, or it sufficient to just store a copy? These practical concerns need further clarification from the MPS.

Duration of Data Storage

The duration for storage of regulated data of domestic enterprises is also unclear. Article 27.1 of Decree 53 stipulates that the data storage period specified in Article 26 of the decree starts from the time the enterprise receives a data storage request and lasts until the end of the request. The minimum storage period is 24 months.

It is unclear whether this data storage period is applicable to both domestic and foreign enterprises. While for foreign enterprises, Decree 53 clearly specifies the authority’s request to store data in Vietnam as a triggering condition, the decree is silent as to any conditions under which the authority will request domestic enterprises to store regulated data. As analyzed above, there might be no such condition to trigger a request for domestic enterprises. This means that, technically, Article 27.1 should only be applicable to foreign enterprises because it requires the enterprise to receive a data storage request from the authority. Therefore, it could be argued that the specified data storage duration is also only applicable to foreign enterprises, and the decree is silent regarding the data storage period for domestic enterprises. Accordingly, it is also unclear whether domestic enterprises have the obligation to continue retaining regulated data after their service users cease the use of their services.

Grace Period for Implementation

Decree 53 is silent on the grace period for domestic enterprises to store data in Vietnam. This could be interpreted to mean that unless there is further guidance from the MPS, domestic enterprises must comply with this requirement from the day Decree 53 takes effect, i.e., October 1, 2022.

Meanwhile, foreign enterprises only need to implement the data localization requirements when the triggering conditions are fulfilled and the MPS has issued a decision requesting them to do so. They also have a grace period of 12 months from the date of the decision to store data in Vietnam. Therefore, compared with foreign enterprises, domestic enterprises would need to be more proactive and act more quickly in storing regulated data in Vietnam.

How Should Domestic Enterprises Move Forward?

Although there has been a long wait for the promulgation of a decree guiding the implementation of the CSL, Decree 53 as issued still poses various ambiguities, uncertainties, and concerns that could prevent it from being implemented effectively. The question put forward is whether the MPS will issue a circular or other official clarification for further guidance of the implementation of Decree 53, especially clarification on the requirements applicable to domestic enterprises.

If there is no further clarification or guidance from the MPS, the strict legal interpretation of Decree 53 would be that all domestic enterprises “providing services on telecommunication networks or the internet or value-added services in cyberspace in Vietnam collecting, exploiting, analyzing, and/or processing personal information data, data on the relationships of service users, or data generated by service users in Vietnam” must store this regulated data in Vietnam. This means that all domestic online service providers which collect, use, analyze, or process regulated data should prepare themselves to comply with this requirement, starting from October 1, 2022.

In addition, if there is no further guidance, domestic enterprises would be well advised to store physically in Vietnam all regulated data they collect, use, analyze, or process. For example, they may store the regulated data in a file which is stored on a computer (their existing system) located in Vietnam, rather than in cloud storage that might be accessible via a computer in Vietnam, but hosted in another country.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
Read More
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More