In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the extent of the breaches. This language suggests

Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Vietnam chapter in the newly released Licensing 2026 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2026 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.

On February 18, 2026, Myanmar’s Ministry of Health issued Order No. 8/2026 announcing the prohibition of electronic smoking devices and related products under the Essential Supplies and Services Law 2012, thus outlawing their use, storage, and trade. The ban covers e‑cigarettes, heated tobacco products, electronic shisha, and all related components and accessories, including devices, parts, batteries, chargers, and flavored liquids (regardless of nicotine content). Prohibited activities include importing, exporting, selling, distributing, possessing, storing, transporting, and using these products, with immediate effect. Regulatory Compliance Businesses and individuals should promptly review their inventories, operations, and commercial arrangements to ensure compliance. Affected products should be withdrawn from the market, and relevant licensing, registration, and reporting obligations should be reviewed. Companies are also advised to update internal compliance procedures and coordinate with relevant authorities as necessary.

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, including the deletion of model weights and

On February 2, 2026, Myanmar’s Ministry of Finance and Revenue issued Notification No. 19/2026, reducing the customs duty rate to 0% for certain battery‑electric vehicles, machinery, and related spare parts, applicable from February 2, 2026, through March 31, 2026. Under the notification, imports of battery‑electric special‑purpose vehicles, battery‑electric industrial machinery, and associated spare parts listed in the notification’s annex are eligible for a zero‑percent customs duty rate. These items must be supported by technical recommendations from the Ministry of Electric Power and a recommendation from the Ministry of Industry. The notification applies to a broad range of battery electric equipment, including the following categories: Special purpose vehicles, such as crane trucks, mobile drilling trucks, concrete mixers, mobile clinics, broadcast vans, and street‑cleaning vehicles. Heavy machinery, including excavators, bulldozers, loaders, cranes, rollers, forklifts, and port handling equipment. Spare parts, covering 16 specified categories, including key components such as chargers, inverters, and controllers. Importers and businesses using electric‑powered industrial equipment should review the scope of the eligible items and confirm whether their planned imports fall within the lists covered by the notification.

The past year has been an important one for the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT). With a right combination of commissioners bringing expertise in competition law, investigations, administrative procedures, court processes, and sector-focused industries, the regulator has pushed forward with stronger enforcement efforts and closer cooperation with both domestic and international stakeholders. In 2025 the TCCT participated in major international initiatives—including peer reviews conducted by the OECD and ASEAN. These efforts reflect Thailand’s ongoing ambition to elevate its competition law framework to meet international expectations and build trust among global communities. There was also significant momentum around potential amendments to the Trade Competition Act (TCA). Political parties, the TCCT, the private sector, and civil society all agreed that the 2017 law could benefit from clearer rules and more effective enforcement tools. Although a draft amendment passed an initial reading and moved to a subcommittee for revision, the process stalled following the dissolution of Parliament. At the same time, the TCCT invested heavily in strengthening its own internal capabilities. It expanded collaborations with organizations such as the OECD, ASEAN authorities, the EU, and counterparts in Japan and Australia. The TCCT also published sector-specific market studies, including on digital platforms and e‑marketplaces and on cold‑rolled steel. The regulator also shared draft guidelines aimed at regulating online platforms—although these have not yet been finalized. What’s Next for the TCCT? Looking ahead, the TCCT is set to keep building on the momentum it has created and be a more active, transparent, and practical regulator. It is likely to become even more visible in the public sphere as it steps up efforts to raise awareness about competition law, especially among businesses that may not traditionally follow or be familiar with such regulatory developments. Digital markets, including e‑commerce and online marketplaces, will remain a particular area of focus as the

Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section 44 of the Air Navigation Act

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade. The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551. The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Consolidated Definitions Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments). The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail. The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements. Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same. Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline requirement—a change from such approval not being required for