By Nguyen Quang Dong, Director and Nguyen Lan Phuong, Digital Regulatory Policy Lead from the Institute for Policy Studies and Media Development (IPS)
The Evolving Policy Landscape of Digital Intermediary Services in Vietnam
Vietnam has taken proactive steps in adjusting its regulatory framework in response to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The country has enacted several laws, including the Cinema Law 2022, Intellectual Property Law 2022, Telecommunications Law 2023, and Electronic Transactions Law 2023. Additionally, Vietnam is drafting important legislation like the Advertising Law 2024. These legal changes reflect Vietnam’s commitment to developing a comprehensive framework for digital intermediary services.
At the decree level, Vietnam has introduced several amendments, including Decree 70/2021/NĐ-CP (related to advertising), Decree 85/2021/NĐ-CP (in the field of e-commerce), Decree replacing Decree 72/2013/NĐ-CP (on management of information on the Internet). Despite these advancements, gaps in regulatory policy remain, particularly concerning digital intermediary services.
Inadequacies in Regulatory Policy for Digital Intermediary Services in Vietnam
Vietnam established international internet connectivity in 1997, but it was not until 2019 that the legal framework for digital services on the Internet was revised to align with the current context. However, these amendments still do not fully meet the needs of the rapidly evolving digital economy. This delay in updating regulations has left some gaps that hinder the development of intermediary services.
Challenges in the Regulatory Framework for Digital Intermediary Services
1. Lack of Clear Regulations
The Information Technology Law 2006 defines the IT industry as encompassing hardware, software, and content sectors (Article 47). Decree 71/2007/NĐ-CP further specifies that the content industry includes activities related to the production of digital content products and the provision of digital information services (Article 10). Digital information services are described as “services provided in the online environment that directly support or serve the production, exploitation, publication, upgrading, warranty, maintenance of digital content products, and other similar activities related to digital information.”
These regulations suggest an intent to distinguish content production from the services that facilitate the exploitation, publication, and storage of content online. However, the intermediary nature of these services is not clearly defined, which can lead to confusion with content provision services.
This ambiguity may explain why Decree 72/2013/NĐ-CP, which governs the management, provision, and use of Internet services and online information, classifies inherently intermediary services—such as app stores and search engines—as information provision services. As a result, digital intermediary service providers are subject to obligations similar to those of content providers, despite merely offering a technology platform that connects users. Furthermore, the draft decree that seeks to replace Decree 72/2013/NĐ-CP introduces new requirements for digital intermediary service providers to monitor user content, potentially holding them liable for violations committed by users.
2. Lack of Consistent Regulations
Currently, 11 documents directly regulate business conditions for digital intermediary services, and 26 documents govern their activities in Vietnam (see Appendix attached as PDF). The Information Technology Law 2006 was the first to regulate intermediary digital services, such as information transmission (Article 16), temporary storage (Article 17), rental of storage (Article 18), and search tools (Article 19). However, it lacks a unified concept of digital intermediary services.
Different regulatory agencies interpret these services inconsistently, leading to conflicting regulations. For instance, the Copyright Office under the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism classifies services like search engines and social networks as intermediary services under the Intellectual Property Law 2022 (Article 198b) and Decree 17/2023/NĐ-CP. In contrast, the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) under the Ministry of Information and Communications treats these services as online information providers, classifying them as publishers in the draft decree replacing Decree 72/2013/NĐ-CP. This draft decree relies on the Information Technology Law 2006 and Telecommunications Law 2009.
A key contradiction arises in the obligations of digital intermediary providers. The Telecommunications Law 2023 prohibits businesses from monitoring users’ information unless required by law (Article 29.2.g). However, the draft decree replacing Decree 72/2013/NĐ-CP mandates such monitoring to remove illegal content (Article 82.3.a). Intermediaries, like data centers, which merely store and transmit user-generated data, should not be held responsible for user content. Enforcing monitoring could expose them to legal risks, including liability for user violations, and may infringe on privacy rights under the Consumer Protection Law 2023 and Decree 13/2023/NĐ-CP on personal data protection.
Policy Recommendations
To foster a more dynamic and efficient digital economy in Vietnam, the following recommendations are proposed to enhance the regulatory framework for digital intermediary services:
1. Updating the Information Technology Law 2006: Updating the Information Technology Law of 2006 is an important step toward streamlining regulations for digital intermediary services, ensuring a clear distinction between these services and traditional publishers or content providers. The revised law should provide clarity around liability, ensuring that digital intermediaries are not automatically held responsible for user-generated content that may violate the law. Additionally, it is crucial that these services are not burdened with the obligation to proactively monitor or police content on their platforms. The focus should instead be on fostering greater transparency and cooperation between digital platforms and regulatory authorities, promoting accountability without imposing excessive operational demands.
However, any move to amend this law must take into account the political and institutional context in Vietnam. While reforming the 2006 law is seen as a positive step by many policymakers, it faces challenges, particularly from the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC). The original law, as Vietnam’s first general regulation on digital intermediary services, has provided the foundation for subsequent regulations, including Decree 72/2013/NĐ-CP, and remains central to the country’s digital governance. The MIC, as the agency tasked with overseeing the digital landscape, seeks to ensure that regulatory reforms continue to support the nation’s priorities, including the safeguarding of political stability and social order. In this context, the MIC has expressed concerns about the need for timely and effective content moderation, particularly for politically sensitive material that could affect public sentiment or national interests.
2. Adopt a Co-Regulation Approach: Adopting a co-regulation approach is essential for effectively managing emerging online issues related to digital intermediary services, such as fake news, false advertising, incitement to violence, and hate speech. This approach involves a collaborative effort where government agencies develop principle-based regulations that set clear guidelines for addressing these issues. Simultaneously, digital intermediary service providers are tasked with establishing and enforcing their own internal policies, community standards, codes of conduct, and technical standards to ensure adherence to legal requirements.
A notable example of this approach is reflected in Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021. This Act establishes baseline expectations for digital service providers to actively protect user safety by developing and registering enforceable industry codes and standards. The Act also promotes transparency and accountability by encouraging providers to report on their compliance efforts, including through transparency reports. This model underscores the importance of a balanced regulatory framework where both government oversight and industry self-regulation work together to address online challenges effectively.
In navigating the complexities of the digital age, Vietnam stands at a critical juncture where refining its regulatory framework for digital intermediary services will significantly impact the nation’s economic trajectory. By addressing the existing gaps and implementing the recommended changes, Vietnam can enhance its digital ecosystem, ensuring it is both dynamic and resilient. As the landscape continues to evolve, ongoing dialogue and collaboration between policy-makers, industry stakeholders, and digital intermediary service providers will be crucial in shaping a regulatory environment that supports growth while balancing innovation with accountability. Embracing these changes will not only bolster Vietnam’s position in the global digital economy but also pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable digital future.
About the writers
Nguyen Quang Dong is Founding Director of Institute for Policy Studies and Media Development (IPS) – a think tank providing advice on policy issues in the technology sector in Vietnam. His recent research and consultancy focus on digital governance, digital infrastructure and digital services. Dong holds a Master’s degree in Governance and Public Policy, awarded by The University of Queensland, Australia.
Nguyen Lan Phuong is Digital Policy Regulatory Lead of Institute for Policy Studies and Media Development (IPS) and serves as Deputy Head of the Legal Affair Department at the Vietnam Digital Communications Association (VDCA). Her research focuses on regulatory reforms to enhance both market and individual freedoms in the digital context of Vietnam. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Laws (LLB) from Hanoi Law University, Vietnam.
The views and recommendations expressed in this article are solely of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views and position of the Tech for Good Institute.
