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

April 15, 2013

Vietnam’s New Draft Regulations on Online Games

IPBA Journal

Vietnam is considered to be an attractive market for online gaming in Asia. With more than 13 million gamers, Vietnam is becoming a popular destination for investors in the online gaming industry. For gaming clients (games installed on computers and played on online) only, the expected market value for 2012 is VND 5.6 trillion (approximately US$269 million).

However, a complete legal framework for online gaming in Vietnam is still in the drafting process. The Vietnamese Government is currently working on the final draft of the Decree on the Management, Supply and Use of Internet Services and Information Content on Networks (Draft Decree) for official issuance. At the time of writing this article, the implementation date of the new regulations remains unclear. Nevertheless, once it is launched, it will have a significant impact on the online gaming business in Vietnam.

Managing More Games

Currently, only internet-based games that have interaction among the players, or between the players and the servers of the gaming providers, are governed under the online gaming regulations. Other types of games that have no interactions among the players or between the players and the supplier’s server, such as downloaded games, are not included in the regulations. As a consequence, downloaded games are not managed as tightly as online games.

However, downloadable games which are played without any interaction also fall under the governance of the Draft Decree, along with other types of online games and are collectively called “electronic games on networks.” Specifically, electronic games here include: (i) games that players would play concurrently via the server system of the gaming providers; (ii) games with interaction between the players and the provider’s servers; (iii) games with interactions among the players but without interactions with the provider’s servers; and (iv) downloadable games without interactions of the players and the provider’s servers. This changes the traditional thought that only online games are under licensing requirements. The definition of electronic games also provides more specifics on the devices that gamers use for playing games, which include any terminal devices such as computers and mobile phones. This makes the coverage of electronic games much more comprehensive and will help enterprises avoid confusion in classifying whether their games are covered by the Draft Decree.

More Permits Required

The Draft Decree retains the same requirement that enterprises entitled to supply games must be established in Vietnam. Furthermore, a new type of permit requirement was added to the draft. Accordingly, any enterprises intending to provide electronic games on networks must obtain a license from the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC). The Draft Decree also requires the licensed enterprises to apply for amendment of the license whenever they add a new game to category (i) above (i.e., games concurrently played among the players and the games provider’s server). As a result, an enterprise in the gaming industry may have to apply to amend its license many times after the first time. As for the remaining games, the enterprise must register with MIC to launch a new game.

The enterprise must also apply for amendment of the license if there is any change to the name of the enterprise, name of the game, or place for locating the enterprise’s server, or if the enterprise ceases or suspends supplying the licensed games within six months of the licensing date. A license for provision of electronic games on networks has a maximum term of 10 years. This maximum term includes the term for extension of the license. If the license has a term of 10 years as its first license, any extension of such license will be no more than one year. No cash deposit or fee for issuing the license is mentioned under the Draft Decree.

Virtual “Goods”

Similar to many other jurisdictions around the world, virtual items are not recognized as assets under Vietnamese laws. Currently, under the Joint Circular No 60/2006/TTLT-BVHTT-BBCVT-BCA on Online Game Management (Circular 60), virtual items are prohibited from being created for profit-earning purposes.

The Draft Decree does not provide such explicit prohibition like Circular 60. It stipulates that virtual items, as well as bonus points, are not allowed to “be exchanged into money or assets in any form.” It seems clear under this regulation that gamers are not allowed to convert virtual items into money or any kind of real property. However, it is not expressly provided whether gaming providers are also prevented from creating such virtual “goods” for selling to gamers. The question may be clarified in the official version of the Decree or further confirmation under a circular.

If the Draft Decree is issued with the intention to prohibit enterprises from creating virtual “goods” in games for commercial purposes (as provided by the current law), there are many games that may not be activated in Vietnam due to this barrier. In fact, the online gaming industry is developing rapidly and many games are offering virtual items to gamers as a type of goods. Purchases of such virtual “goods” in certain games are conditions for participating in the games.

Despite these prevailing and draft regulations, a number of cases have arisen in practice where gamers sell and purchase virtual “goods” and then have disputes with each other. In the future, where players have to pay a huge amount of money for a virtual item, or in a situation where thousands of players ask for the real value of the virtual items, it would not only be an issue on legal paper, but would become a major social issue. A legal consequence of a civil transaction which contradicts laws such as a “commercial transaction” of virtual “goods” may not be recognized and settled by the relevant authorities and court.

Payment for Online Games

Gamers often use credit cards (e.g., Visa, MasterCard), debit cards, or electronic banking to buy hours for playing games, or to buy games (and to buy virtual items in a number of games). However, in Vietnam, many gamers are youths or students. Most of them are not able to earn money and rarely use international payment cards, internet banking, or debit cards. Rather, they often use cash to buy certain types of payment cards, such as game cards or calling cards to make game account payments.

It would be more convenient for a gaming provider to directly collect the payment and provide a payment facility for the gamers, especially for gaming providers that issue a virtual currency for use in their games (e.g., for buying virtual items in a game). These virtual currencies can be converted from real money paid by the gamers.

However, in Vietnam, while the laws are silent on the subject of issuance of a virtual currency, the granting of licenses to conduct payment services is very limited for organizations that are not banks, like a gaming provider. To date, only nine non-banking organizations have been licensed to provide intermediate payment services. Several of these enterprises are companies operating in the information technology area. A license to a non-banking organization is considered by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) on a case-by-case basis only. Practically speaking, possible reasons for the SBV to limit foreign non-banking organizations in providing payment services may be to control the potential risks, such as international gambling on the internet or money laundering.

A new draft on non-cash payment provides stricter conditions for non-banking organizations to be able to provide these types of services. Further conditions are proposed under this new draft. Specifically, the organization must have a minimum of VND 50 billion in charter capital and sufficient financial capacity to establish engineering equipment systems, and maintain operations which are appropriate for the scale of service provision. With these conditions, it seems the SBV tends to limit enterprises in a completely different industry, (e.g., the games industry), from conducting payment services.

Gamers and Internet Cafes

For fear of an increase in crimes due to the possible impaired physical and mental health of gamers, gamers will have to register their personal information each time in order to be able to play and they will be limited to a maximum of three hours per game. Gaming providers and internet cafes are not allowed to provide gaming services between 10 pm and 8 am. Internet cafes are not permitted to serve customers in school uniforms between 8 am and 5 pm. These facilities must verify and save personal information of gamers, including name, age, permanent address, and an identity card number or passport. Gaming content including violent or sexual acts, brutal fighting, or bleeding is strictly prohibited.

Internet use is now a major part of people’s daily lives. Online gaming, as a form of entertainment, has become very popular, especially among the youth in society. While people expect to have varied forms of entertainment made available to them, this must be balanced with mechanisms in place to prevent gaming addiction, as well as other negative consequences arising from online gaming. Enterprises operating in the gaming industry are concerned about tighter restrictions which could be burdensome. Meanwhile, enterprises may be influenced while waiting for the Decree to be issued (e.g., because there is a limitation on granting new licenses to gaming providers). The Decree, therefore, is greatly anticipated by gamers as well as relevant enterprises.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
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