Privacy law in Vietnam – Website users’ information

Users’ information as personal information

Under Vietnamese laws, users’ information such as names, email addresses, passwords and date of birth could be classified as “personal information” (thông tin cá nhân). In particular,

(a)          Under Decree 72/2013, personal information is defined as information  which  is  attached  to  the  identification  of  the  identity  and personal  details  of  an  individual  including name,  age,  address,  people's  identity  card  number, telephone number, email address and other information as stipulated by law;

(b)          Under Circular 25/2010,  personal information means information sufficient to precisely identify an individual, which includes at least one of the following details: full name, birth date, occupation, title, contact address, email address, telephone number, identity card number and passport number. Information of personal privacy includes health record, tax payment record, social insurance card number, credit card number and other personal secrets.  Circular 25 applies to the collection and use of personal information by websites operated by Vietnamese Government authorities. Circular 25 is not directly applicable to the collection and use of personal information by websites operated by non-Government entities. However, the provisions of Circular 25 could be applied by analogy. In addition, it is likely that a non-Government entity will be subject to the same or more stringent standards than those applicable to a Government entity; and

(c)           Under Decree 52/2013,  personal information is information contributing to identifying a particular individual, including his/her name, age, home address, phone number, medical information, account number, information on personal payment transactions and other information that the individual wishes to keep confidential, excluding work contact information and other information that the individual himself/herself has published in the mass media.   

Users’ information as “secret of private life”

The Civil Code provides that an individual’s rights to “secrets of his/her private life” (bí mật đời tư) must be respected and shall be protected by law”. The Civil Code does not define what constitutes a secret of private life. However the following provisions may shed some lights on the meaning of secret of private life:

(a)          Decree 185/2013  defines “personal secrets” of a consumer to mean information pertaining to personal consumers in which consumers or relevant organizations or individuals have applied security measures, if such information is disclosed or used without their prior consents, such disclosure or use will cause negative effects on their health, lives, properties or other physical or mental damages to consumers.

(b)          Decree 52/2013 seems to suggest personal secrets to mean personal information that the relevant person wishes to keep confidential; and            

(c)           Circular 25/2010 considers health record, tax payment record, social insurance card number, credit card number and other personal secrets to be personal secrets.

In addition, in Vietnamese, the word “secrets” (bí mật) is usually understood as something which is being kept confidential and which is not disclosed to outsiders.  The word “private life” (đời tư) is usually understood as something that relates to one person only rather than things that are public or known to others.

In light of the above, if the user does not take measures to keep his user’s information confidential then such information may arguably not be regarded as “secrets of private life”. If this were the case, they would not be subject to the protection conferred by Article 38.1 of the Civil Code. In practice, other than passwords, an individual generally does not keep his/her name, email addresses or, except for very limited circumstances, date of birth confidential. Therefore, in general, passwords could be considered as secret of private life.

Users’ information as State secret

The Ordinance on State Secrets  defines State secrets as “information on cases, affairs, documents, objects, venues, time, speech, carrying important contents in the fields of politics, national defense, security, external affairs, economy, science, technology and other fields, which the State does not publicize or has not yet publicized and the disclosure of which will cause harm to the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam”. The definition of State secrets is very broad and general may cover certain personal information of certain individuals. For example,

(a)          unpublished details of high ranking State and political leaders may be regarded as “top secrets”; 

(b)          “information concerning deposits and other deposited property of customers at credit institutions”, and “customer codes used for identifying individual payment cards of the payment card users, credit cards and other types of cards used in banking operations; and passwords of computer users for remote access systems in banking sectors may be regarded as secret;  and

(c)           personal data of various State officials (especially those at high level positions or those working in sensitive sectors or organizations) may be regarded as secret.

Therefore, in theory, in certain limited scenario, website users’ information collected by a website operator may constitute State secret under Vietnamese law.

“Legal capital” for companies in Vietnam

In other countries, legal capital is often understood to be “the amount of a company's equity that cannot legally be allowed to leave the business and cannot be distributed through a dividend or any other means. The closest meaning to this under Vietnamese law is “charter capital”.

However, for a Vietnamese company, the term “legal capital” has a different meaning than it is usually understood in other countries. Currently, under the Enterprise Law, “legal capital” (vốn pháp định) is defined as the minimum amount of capital required by law for the establishment of an enterprise engaging in certain conditional business (e.g. real estate, banking or securities). “Charter capital” is the amount actually contributed or will be contributed by the shareholders of a company. Therefore, the “charter capital” must be at least equal to the “legal capital”, and in most cases are much higher than the “legal capital”. Usually, legal capital is fixed at a specific number. For instance, an entity engaged in real estate business must have a “legal capital” of VND 6 billion. This means that the entity must have a charter capital of VND 6 billion or more.

The above difference may cause certain confusion when interpreting Vietnamese law. For example,

  • Before 1 July 2006, for foreign-invested enterprises, under the old Foreign Investment Law, the term “legal capital” is defined to mean the equity capital contributed (or to be contributed) by the investors in a foreign invested enterprise. Certain laws or regulations still use the term “legal capital” in this sense. These laws and regulations are usually issued before 1 July 2006. However, by mistakes, some laws or regulations issued after 1 July 2006 still use the term “legal capital” in this sense (e.g. the amendment to the Law on Cinematography issued in 2009).
  • The WTO Commitments of Vietnam also contain various references to “legal capital” in the context of applicable foreign ownership limits. Again the term “legal capital” in this context should be understood as “charter capital”.  

That being said, there is no express guidance about how to interpret the term “legal capital” used in the above scenarios. Therefore, if the authority happens to take a restrictive view then the foreign ownership limit in certain sectors provided in the WTO Commitments or certain laws and regulations may be subject to a much lower limit.

​​

Easement over servient land in Vietnam

An easement is a right benefiting a piece of land (known as the dominant land) that is enjoyed over another piece of land owned by someone else (the servient land). Under the new Land Law 2013, easement over servient land includes rights to:

·         access public roads;

·         access to water supply and water drainage

·         discharge water;

·         access to gas supply;

·         use telecommunication and electricity cables; and

·         other reasonable needs for the dominant land.

It is not clear if the last item can include negative easements such as right of light or right of air. The Civil Code require the owner of dominant land to pay compensation for the owner of servient land for the easement that the former enjoys over servient land. More importantly, from 1 July 2014, all easement needs to be registered in accordance with the new Land Law. This is a new requirement. In practice, the Government may not be able to set up an easement  registration system in time for implementation. It is not clear if the Government would provide for some grace period for registration of easement.  

Vietnam Business Law Blog

On 3 September 2025, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) released the Official Letter no. 13629 addressing questions related to difficulties and obstacles arising from legal regulations in the finance and investment sector. This correspondence has several notable issues that are summarized below. While some of the MOF’s guidance offers welcome flexibility and operational reassurance, others fall short of providing clear or comprehensive clarification, leaving important gaps unresolved and inconsistencies with other legislation unaddressed.

Delegation by the General Meeting of Shareholders endorsed in principle (Query no. 29)

Query/Issue raised:

Current regulations regarding delegation/authorisation (both could be translated to/from "uỷ quyền" in Vietnamese) by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) to the Board are unclear and conflicting. […]

A recurring issue in Vietnam corporate governance is whether a former member of the Board of Directors can be appointed as an “independent” Board member in the subsequent term, provided that all other statutory criteria are satisfied. This typically arises where companies want to retain a former board member while still complying with independence requirements under Article 155.2 of the Enterprises Law 2020 as amended in 2025 (Enterprises Law 2020).

Under Article 155.2(dd) of Enterprises Law 2020, an independent Board member must “not hold the position of member of the Board of the company within the last 05 years or longer unless he/she was designated in 02 consecutive terms.

Vietnamese law currently lacks a formal definition of “latent defect” (khiếm khuyết ẩn) and a clear mechanism for allocating liability once such defects arise. This regulatory vacuum often leads to prolonged disputes between the Employer and the Contractor, particularly when the construction contracts do not include explicit risk allocation.

For the purpose of our discussion below, a “latent defect” is defined as a fault or flaw in construction works/item that is not discoverable through a reasonably thorough inspection at the time of handover.

When companies think about data protection, they usually focus on “visible” data like names, email addresses, or bank details. However, there is a hidden layer called metadata - essentially “data about data” - that often gets ignored.

Under Vietnam’s new personal data protection rules, overlooking metadata is a major risk. If metadata can be used to identify a specific person, it falls under the same strict rules as regular personal data.

What is Metadata? The “Digital Footprint”

Metadata is information that describes the context of a file or a message rather than the content itself. Even if you remove a person’s name from a file, the metadata can still point directly to them.

Vietnam is currently at a pivotal stage of infrastructure modernization. To meet the immense demand for capital, the State has moved to revitalize private sector participation, most notably through the “Build – Transfer” (BT) model.

In a typical BT arrangement, a private investor finances and constructs an infrastructure project, then transfers it to the State upon completion. In return, the State “pays” the investor with land funds, allowing them to develop a “reciprocal project” (dự án đối ứng) to recover their capital and generate profit. While this mechanism is essential to stimulate private sector participation, the recent new legal framework for BT projects may raise significant concern regarding the land access privileges granted to BT investors compared to their counterparts in the general real estate market. In particular,

The recently issued Case Law No. 81/2024/AL (CL 81) introduces a precedent that allows creditors to bypass the standard statute of limitations by re-characterizing an unpaid contractual debt as a property reclamation claim upon the mutual termination of the contract and an agreement on the payable amount. Below are a few of our observations regarding CL 81.

Summary of the Case

The dispute originated from a service contract between Company M (the Service Provider) and Company A (the Client). After the Service Provider performed its services, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract. Subsequently, the Client explicitly confirmed in writing the specific amount of the service fee it owed to the Service Provider and the late payment interest but ultimately failed to make the payment. When the Service Provider filed a lawsuit to recover the unpaid amount, the Client requested the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the 3-year statute of limitations for a contractual dispute had already expired.

For investors in Vietnam, "contributing capital" to a company can mean two very different things: becoming a legal owner (member/shareholder of a company) or simply being a business partner. A recent case law no. 78/2025/AL clarifies this distinction and indicates that several pieces of evidence may be considered to prove company member/shareholder status.

Case Summary

In this dispute, Mr. H, the plaintiff, provided significant funds to D Limited Liability Company, which was managed by his relatives. Although Mr. H received the profit distribution for over a decade and signed minutes acknowledging his contribution, Mr. H was never officially recorded as a member of the company in the enterprise registration certificates (ERC) or the company’s charter.

When partnering with government agencies (G2B), the risks often come from policy changes and the adoption of new legislation, causing obstacles, delays, and payment backlogs in PPP contracts (especially BT contracts). Following the establishment of Steering Committee 751 (Ban Chỉ Đạo 751) to resolve investment projects with pending legal issues, the Government has recently prepared a Resolution Draft (the Draft) to address approximately 160 transitional BT projects still facing legal obstacles (such projects, “Pending BT Project”).

Focusing specifically on Pending BT Projects where land-use rights serve as the State’s payment mechanism, the following analysis highlights critical issues arising from the proposed changes introduced by this Draft:

On 31 December 2025, the Government issued Decree 356/2025 guiding the implementation of the PDPL 2025, which took effect on 1 January 2026. Decree 356/2025 provides critical detailed guidance and, notably, resolves several ambiguities under the PDPL 2025 framework. This post highlights the key takeaways from this new regulation.

1.         Expansion of "sensitive personal data": ID Cards and login credentials

As compared to the Draft PDPL Decree, Decree 356/2025 expands the scope of sensitive personal data to explicitly include:

On 11 December 2025, the National Assembly adopted new investment law (Investment Law 2025). On this blog, we discuss some key changes in the new Investment Law 2025.

Clarification of business investment conditions

The Investment Law 2025 refines the definition of business investment conditions (Điều kiện đầu tư kinh doanh) by introducing an explicit exclusion: these conditions no longer encompass technical standards and regulations issued by competent authorities concerning product or service quality. This addition narrows the scope of what constitutes a "conditional business line", distinguishing administrative market-entry conditions from mere technical product standards.



New Decree on Maritime Services in Vietnam

Various new requirements on maritime transportation services, shipping agency services and towage services in Vietnam are introduced in Decree 30/2014. In particular, from 1 July 2014, under Decree 30/2014:

  • Any new company providing maritime transportation services will need to have a Maritime Transportation Service Licence from the Vietnam Marine Bureau. A Maritime Transportation Service Licence is valid for 5 years. Companies established before 1 July 2014 providing maritime transportation services will have 5 years to obtain the Maritime Transportation Service Licence.
  • Companies providing maritime transportation services must have a minimum capital of VND 5 billion (US$ 250,000) for domestic routes or VND 20 billion (US$ 1 million) for outbound routes.
  • A shipping agency company must now use Vietnamese “shipping agent” employees. It is not clear who would be considered as “shipping agent” employees within a shipping agency company.
  • A towage service company must have at least two towing vessels and must purchase professional insurances.
  • Interestingly, Decree 30/2014 requires all companies involving in maritime transportation services, shipping agency services and towage services to have, among other things, experienced in-house counsels.
  • A foreign investor is allowed to set up joint venture shipping agency or joint venture towing service company with no more than 49% foreign ownership. It is not clear whether a foreign investor could acquire an existing Vietnamese shipping agency company or an existing towing service company.
  • It is not clear if a company providing transshipment services is regarded as a maritime transportation company or a company providing loading and unloading services. In the former case, a foreign investor may hold 100% charter capital of a maritime transportation company in Vietnam. On the other hand, in the latter case, a foreign investor can only hold up to 50% charter capital. 
Vietnam Business Law Blog

On 3 September 2025, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) released the Official Letter no. 13629 addressing questions related to difficulties and obstacles arising from legal regulations in the finance and investment sector. This correspondence has several notable issues that are summarized below. While some of the MOF’s guidance offers welcome flexibility and operational reassurance, others fall short of providing clear or comprehensive clarification, leaving important gaps unresolved and inconsistencies with other legislation unaddressed.

Delegation by the General Meeting of Shareholders endorsed in principle (Query no. 29)

Query/Issue raised:

Current regulations regarding delegation/authorisation (both could be translated to/from "uỷ quyền" in Vietnamese) by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) to the Board are unclear and conflicting. […]

A recurring issue in Vietnam corporate governance is whether a former member of the Board of Directors can be appointed as an “independent” Board member in the subsequent term, provided that all other statutory criteria are satisfied. This typically arises where companies want to retain a former board member while still complying with independence requirements under Article 155.2 of the Enterprises Law 2020 as amended in 2025 (Enterprises Law 2020).

Under Article 155.2(dd) of Enterprises Law 2020, an independent Board member must “not hold the position of member of the Board of the company within the last 05 years or longer unless he/she was designated in 02 consecutive terms.

Vietnamese law currently lacks a formal definition of “latent defect” (khiếm khuyết ẩn) and a clear mechanism for allocating liability once such defects arise. This regulatory vacuum often leads to prolonged disputes between the Employer and the Contractor, particularly when the construction contracts do not include explicit risk allocation.

For the purpose of our discussion below, a “latent defect” is defined as a fault or flaw in construction works/item that is not discoverable through a reasonably thorough inspection at the time of handover.

When companies think about data protection, they usually focus on “visible” data like names, email addresses, or bank details. However, there is a hidden layer called metadata - essentially “data about data” - that often gets ignored.

Under Vietnam’s new personal data protection rules, overlooking metadata is a major risk. If metadata can be used to identify a specific person, it falls under the same strict rules as regular personal data.

What is Metadata? The “Digital Footprint”

Metadata is information that describes the context of a file or a message rather than the content itself. Even if you remove a person’s name from a file, the metadata can still point directly to them.

Vietnam is currently at a pivotal stage of infrastructure modernization. To meet the immense demand for capital, the State has moved to revitalize private sector participation, most notably through the “Build – Transfer” (BT) model.

In a typical BT arrangement, a private investor finances and constructs an infrastructure project, then transfers it to the State upon completion. In return, the State “pays” the investor with land funds, allowing them to develop a “reciprocal project” (dự án đối ứng) to recover their capital and generate profit. While this mechanism is essential to stimulate private sector participation, the recent new legal framework for BT projects may raise significant concern regarding the land access privileges granted to BT investors compared to their counterparts in the general real estate market. In particular,

The recently issued Case Law No. 81/2024/AL (CL 81) introduces a precedent that allows creditors to bypass the standard statute of limitations by re-characterizing an unpaid contractual debt as a property reclamation claim upon the mutual termination of the contract and an agreement on the payable amount. Below are a few of our observations regarding CL 81.

Summary of the Case

The dispute originated from a service contract between Company M (the Service Provider) and Company A (the Client). After the Service Provider performed its services, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract. Subsequently, the Client explicitly confirmed in writing the specific amount of the service fee it owed to the Service Provider and the late payment interest but ultimately failed to make the payment. When the Service Provider filed a lawsuit to recover the unpaid amount, the Client requested the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the 3-year statute of limitations for a contractual dispute had already expired.

For investors in Vietnam, "contributing capital" to a company can mean two very different things: becoming a legal owner (member/shareholder of a company) or simply being a business partner. A recent case law no. 78/2025/AL clarifies this distinction and indicates that several pieces of evidence may be considered to prove company member/shareholder status.

Case Summary

In this dispute, Mr. H, the plaintiff, provided significant funds to D Limited Liability Company, which was managed by his relatives. Although Mr. H received the profit distribution for over a decade and signed minutes acknowledging his contribution, Mr. H was never officially recorded as a member of the company in the enterprise registration certificates (ERC) or the company’s charter.

When partnering with government agencies (G2B), the risks often come from policy changes and the adoption of new legislation, causing obstacles, delays, and payment backlogs in PPP contracts (especially BT contracts). Following the establishment of Steering Committee 751 (Ban Chỉ Đạo 751) to resolve investment projects with pending legal issues, the Government has recently prepared a Resolution Draft (the Draft) to address approximately 160 transitional BT projects still facing legal obstacles (such projects, “Pending BT Project”).

Focusing specifically on Pending BT Projects where land-use rights serve as the State’s payment mechanism, the following analysis highlights critical issues arising from the proposed changes introduced by this Draft: