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​ 

July 1, 2025
Now halfway through 2025, Thailand continues to advance in the realm of data privacy, with the ambitious goal of achieving zero data breaches. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), an independent government body established by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), is taking a more proactive approach, having published several rulings and orders to enhance data protection measures and clarify compliance expectations for businesses. Here is a look back at Thailand’s data privacy developments in the first half of the year. Strengthening Law Enforcement and New Guidance for Compliance Enforcement of existing data protection laws and regulations has taken a step forward this year. Some of the specific initiatives include: Increased enforcement by the PDPC. A key trend to watch from the first half of 2025 is the PDPC’s active enforcement of the PDPA as it intensifies oversight through compliance orders and public warnings against noncompliant organizations while ramping up efforts to prevent and halt the illegal trading of personal data by actively monitoring emerging societal issues. Call center scams and cyber fraud control. Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Orders from the Expert Committee. Several orders issued by the Expert Committee under the PDPA were announced in the first half of this year. These include directives for data controllers to take corrective actions to comply with the PDPA, as well as initiatives to raise awareness of data privacy within organizations, reflecting the regulator’s focus on promoting organizational awareness and compliance. A guideline report summarizing the Expert Committee’s decisions and orders was also published to serve as a reference for compliance. Public issue monitoring. The PDPC has been taking a more proactive approach
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More
June 26, 2025
Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion,
Read More
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.
Read More