On April 2, 2025, the Vietnam Traders Arbitration Centre (VTA) successfully hosted an online webinar themed “Data Law & Dispute Resolution through Arbitration”. The event was held via Zoom, in collaboration with leading professional organizations including Dentons LuatViet, Nishimura & Asahi, Veron Group (USA), and Vietnam Data Protection – Privacy Compliance.

The webinar attracted the participation of numerous legal experts, lawyers, arbitrators, technology enterprises, and academic researchers.

Speakers & Moderators:

• Mr. Tran Duy Canh – Managing Partner, Dentons LuatViet
• Dr. Duong Van Thinh – Vice President of AI Technology, Veron Group (USA)
• Ms. Ung Kim Phuong – Chief Data Officer, InnoFlow Data
• Mr. Nguyen Duc Long, Lawyer & Arbitrator at VTA – Legal Expert in Data Privacy
• Mr. Tran Minh Tuan – Senior Associate, Nishimura & Asahi
• Mr. Phan Thanh Tuan – In-house Counsel & Arbitrator at VTA
• Moderators: Mr. Danh Nguyen and Ms. Dang Dieu Phuong – Vice President, VTA

Webinar Content

🔹 Part 1: Legal Framework for Data Protection in Vietnam – Recent Updates

Lawyer and VTA Arbitrator Nguyễn Đức Long provided a comprehensive overview of Vietnam’s legal framework on personal data protection, tracing the transition from a fragmented regulatory landscape prior to 2023 to the significant progress marked by the issuance of Decree No. 13/2023/NĐ-CP and the Draft Law on Personal Data Protection.

He emphasized that Decree 13 represents a critical milestone in establishing a comprehensive and direct legal framework governing personal data processing. Nevertheless, he noted that the implementation has encountered various challenges, including the lack of detailed guidance, the absence of classification among data subjects, and the considerable compliance burden placed on businesses with limited resources.

Nội dung trình bày của LS Nguyễn Đức Long về Cập nhật khung pháp lý dữ liệu tại Việt Nam

Mr. Long also introduced several new provisions under the Draft Law on Personal Data Protection, such as:

• Classification of personal data into basic data and sensitive data;
• Additional regulations on data processing in specific sectors such as AI, finance, and social networks;
• Enforcement of financial penalties ranging from 1% to 5% of annual revenue for non-compliant organizations..

In parallel, he also referred to the Law on Data (enacted on November 30, 2024, and effective from July 1, 2025), which aims to establish a unified legal framework for the management, exploitation, and sharing of data, thereby promoting the development of digital government, digital economy, and data markets in Vietnam.

🔹 Part 2: Conflict in the Data Industry – Expert's Approach

🎙️ According to Lawyer Trần Duy Cảnh 

• Data-related disputes in Vietnam remain relatively limited in number compared to other areas of legal conflict. One key reason, according to Mr. Cảnh, is that data subjects — both individuals and organizations — have not yet paid sufficient attention to data protection, despite its growing importance as a legal asset. Only after the issuance of Decree No. 13/2023/NĐ-CP did awareness and concern about legal compliance in the field of data protection begin to rise

In practice, most data disputes stem from conflicts of interest between consumers and businesses, such as when personal information is disclosed without consent during service use or product purchases. Meanwhile, disputes between data controllers and data processors — for example, between a bank and its technology vendors like Amazon or Microsoft — are not yet common, or if they do occur, they are rarely made public. He also noted the risk of internal data breaches by employees, which may lead to disputes between individuals and their employer, particularly in sensitive sectors such as real estate..

• Lawyer Trần Duy Cảnh emphasized that — in his view — one of the most important clauses in contracts involving data processing is the dispute resolution clause. In the current context, where businesses increasingly face complaints and disputes from data subjects — especially consumers — proactively agreeing to use commercial arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism is a strategic and advisable choice.

According to him, arbitration is well-suited for data-related disputes due to its ability to ensure confidentiality — a particularly critical factor when handling personal or business-sensitive data. This is also why many major corporations in developed countries prefer arbitration over litigation, given that court proceedings are typically public by default.

Furthermore, Mr. Cảnh noted that contracts between data controllers and data processors should clearly stipulate: The specific types of data permitted to be processed (rather than a blanket transfer of all data); The purpose of data processing; The duration and location of data storage; and Whether data can be transferred to third parties — which, in his opinion, should be strictly limited or entirely prohibited, unless explicit consent is obtained from the data subject.

🎙️According to Dr. Dương Văn Thịnh 

• In today’s digital era, data has not only expanded in volume but also become increasingly diverse and complex — particularly with the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). In the West — especially in the United States — data-related lawsuits are now commonplace, with the value of disputes reaching millions or even billions of US dollars. Notably, up to 80% of these cases involve AI systems and AI agents.

One of the primary causes of these disputes lies in the unauthorized automatic data collection by AI agents or the use of unverified and unofficial data sources, which generates serious legal risks. Key legal challenges include determining whether data was collected and processed with proper legal authorization, and identifying who bears responsibility along the AI development chain — even in advanced jurisdictions such as the United States, France, or Switzerland.

Dr. Thịnh also emphasized that the explosion and increasing complexity of data makes tracing data provenance more difficult, while existing legal frameworks are lagging behind technological realities. This regulatory lag contributes to growing legal uncertainty and an increasing number of disputes emerging from the deployment of AI models.

• Dr. Thịnh went on to highlight that when discussing disputes related to AI and data, most current issues are linked to generative AI, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) and Small Language Models (SLMs)

Countries around the world are now focusing on developing and regulating AI systems based on large-scale language data. In doing so, technical bodies, academic institutions, and state regulators typically rely on a set of benchmark criteria — a defined set of key indicators — to assess and govern the development, transparency, reliability, and safety of AI models

In theory, if legislation could fully encompass these benchmarks, the legal system would become relatively comprehensive and effective. However, in practice, the diversity and constant evolution of generative AI models far exceed the predictive capabilities of both technologists and lawmakers. As a result, legal gaps continue to emerge, forcing countries to regularly revise, update, and expand their regulatory frameworks to keep pace with the practical rollout of AI technologies.

Speakers discuss on the topic "Conflict in the Data Industry – Expert's Approach"

🎙️According to Ms. Ứng Kim Phượng

• From the perspective of an enterprise that directly controls and processes data, Ms. Ứng Kim Phượng emphasized that Decree No. 13/2023/NĐ-CP has truly been a “game changer” in how businesses approach and manage data operations..

Previously, common practices mainly revolved around signing Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with partners or individuals and issuing internal guidelines for data handling. However, since the entry into force of Decree 13, businesses have been required to implement far more stringent administrative procedures, including: Data Processing Impact Assessments (DPIAs), incident response plans for data breaches, data encryption and access control, and the development of standardized compliance workflows across all relevant parties.

She stressed that when working with partners, companies must clearly define the scope of data use, ensure explicit consent from data subjects, and strictly refrain from directly accessing personal data unless prior authorization has been granted.

In addition, human factors — especially internal compliance awareness — remain critical. Internal policies must be clear and transparent, accompanied by well-defined dispute resolution mechanisms, to mitigate risks similar to the high-profile case involving Meta’s collection of data from 87 million users, which exposed significant ambiguity in distinguishing between sensitive and non-sensitive personal data.

🔹 Part 3: Arbitration – An Effective Mechanism for Resolving Data Disputes

🎙️  Mr. Phan Thành Tuấn 

• From both academic and practical perspectives—especially in the healthcare sector where personal data is highly sensitive—Mr. Phan Thành Tuấn affirmed that commercial arbitration serves as an appropriate and effective dispute resolution mechanism for matters involving data.

One of arbitration’s most prominent advantages is its confidential nature throughout the entire proceedings. This is particularly important for parties that require their data to remain confidential—especially when such data involves customers, patients, or trade secrets. He emphasized: “If one party regards data as a confidential asset, they are entitled to expect that the dispute resolution process will uphold an equivalent level of confidentiality.”

In addition, under the Vietnamese Law on Commercial Arbitration and aligned with international best practices, arbitration hearings are not open to the public, and arbitral awards are not required to be published. This stands in contrast to the principle of public trials and published judgments in court litigation. As such, arbitration is often the preferred method for organizations in technology, data, and healthcare sectors, where discretion and procedural flexibility are essential.

• Mr. Tuấn further stressed that the drafting of dispute resolution clauses related to data should be given serious consideration at the contract negotiation stage. When parties opt for arbitration, it is critical to select an arbitral institution with credibility and a roster of arbitrators who have deep expertise in the relevant subject matter of the contract.

He noted that most arbitration centers provide model arbitration clauses, typically published on their websites, which include key components such as the name of the institution, the applicable arbitration rules, and the designated seat of arbitration. For more complex transactions, businesses may wish to tailor the arbitration clause to include: specific qualifications or industry experience required of the arbitrators; composition of the arbitral tribunal; involvement of independent experts or technical entities; and even an expanded scope of arbitral jurisdiction to comprehensively address potential disputes.

According to Mr. Tuấn, in-house counsel should invest greater care and foresight in drafting arbitration clauses—particularly in contracts involving data and technology—in order to anticipate potential risks and ensure the enforceability of arbitral awards should disputes arise.

🎙️Mr. Nguyễn Đức Long 

• According to Mr. Long, the use of arbitration by individuals in disputes with corporate entities may have certain limitations, as individuals often have alternative mechanisms available, such as filing complaints with consumer protection authorities or other competent state agencies

However, when it comes to disputes between businesses, Mr. Long strongly agreed that arbitration is a highly appropriate and effective mechanism, particularly because of its efficiency and confidentiality—two key features that help companies avoid disruptions to their business operations. He cited a recent case in which the parties included a clause in their contract requiring any dispute to be resolved within 24 hours, to prevent delays to the project timeline. In practice, the dispute was fully resolved within just 6 hours, allowing the parties to resume the implementation of the partially completed project.

Mr. Long also emphasized the enforceability advantage of international arbitral awards, especially when the parties are based in jurisdictions that are signatories to the 1958 New York Convention, which facilitates cross-border recognition and enforcement—a critical consideration in data-related disputes with foreign elements.

From a legal standpoint, he concurred with the view that under Vietnam’s Law on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights, consumers may agree to submit their disputes to arbitration. This approach is being increasingly encouraged in many jurisdictions as it enhances procedural flexibility and empowers parties with greater control over the dispute resolution process.

• Mr. Long highlighted one of the key advantages of arbitration: the ability to appoint arbitrators with deep expertise and professional ethics. The parties have the right to appoint arbitrators they trust—not only from a specific institution’s panel, but also from other domestic or international centers, provided both parties consent. In three-member tribunals, parties can ensure a balance of technical expertise, industry knowledge, and impartiality

In addition, arbitral tribunals have the authority to invite independent experts to provide technical or specialized opinions, which can support the tribunal in its fact-finding and decision-making processes—an essential feature in technology-intensive and complex technical disputes, such as those involving data or artificial intelligence.

Mr. Long noted that this flexibility is difficult to achieve in litigation before national courts due to limitations in resources, procedural rigidity, and lack of specialized support staff. Arbitration, by contrast, enables the tribunal to proactively seek out relevant expertise to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the final award.

• To prevent the emergence of disputes—or to facilitate smoother dispute resolution—Mr. Long emphasized that Vietnam’s data protection framework must be clarified and made more practicable. He observed that many businesses still face uncertainties in applying Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP, particularly due to a lack of detailed guidance and consistent interpretation, even though they are directly responsible for compliance.

From a dispute resolution perspective, he underscored that arbitration can only fully realize its potential when accompanied by a high degree of specialization. This means that: arbitrators must have in-depth knowledge of data-related legal issues; and arbitral institutions must build technical capacity, offer training programs, and establish a strong reputation for expertise and quality in the eyes of the business community.

🎙️Mr. Trần Minh Tuấn 

• Mr. Trần Minh Tuấn agreed with other speakers that confidentiality is the core factor making arbitration a well-suited dispute resolution mechanism in data-related cases. According to him, data is an inherently sensitive subject matter, requiring a procedural environment that ensures both privacy rights and the protection of business secrets.

He pointed out that even within the judicial system, cases involving trade secrets may be conducted in camera (behind closed doors) or under restricted public access, as permitted by law. However, arbitration offers an even higher default level of confidentiality, as arbitral proceedings and awards are not required to be made public, in contrast to court proceedings which generally follow the principle of public trial and publication of judgments.

On the question of transparency, a value often emphasized in dispute resolution, Mr. Tuấn clarified that confidentiality and transparency in arbitration are not mutually exclusive. Transparency is reflected in several ways: parties have the right to request disclosure of information regarding arbitrators appointed by the other side; evidentiary exchange must be conducted fairly; and concerns about the impartiality, independence, or transparency of any arbitrator can be raised before the tribunal or arbitral institution.

Thus, the non-public nature of arbitration does not diminish its transparency. On the contrary, it allows for a balanced approach between access to justice and the protection of sensitive information—a critical concern in the digital era.

• According to Mr. Tuấn, the distinctive and most valuable attribute of commercial arbitration lies in its flexibility. Arbitration empowers parties with the freedom to shape the dispute resolution process, including selecting arbitrators, customizing procedural rules, defining the scope of disputes, choosing the language and seat of arbitration, and even appointing independent experts to assist in resolving technically complex matters.

Therefore, in his view, there is no need to establish a specialized arbitral mechanism solely for data disputes. Through party autonomy, disputing parties can design arbitration procedures tailored to the nature of data-related disputes—similar to practices in sectors like finance, construction, or intellectual property.

That said, Mr. Tuấn recommended that arbitral institutions should proactively invest in specialized expertise, by developing a roster of arbitrators with in-depth knowledge of data, technology, and artificial intelligence (AI). Transparent communication regarding arbitrators' credentials and a center’s capacity to handle complex data disputes would be a decisive factor in gaining the trust of the business community.

Speakers discuss on the topic "Why Arbitration for Data Conflicts?"

Closing Remarks & Appreciation

The webinar “Pháp Luật Dữ liệu & Giải quyết Tranh chấp bằng Trọng tài” (Data Law & Dispute Resolution through Arbitration), organized by the Vietnam Traders Arbitration Centre (VTA) on April 2, 2025, offered a comprehensive, multi-dimensional, and up-to-date overview of:

• The current and forthcoming legal framework governing personal data in Vietnam;
• Practical legal challenges and risks businesses are facing in the digital age;
• Perspectives from AI technologies, particularly generative AI, and their implications for data rights and related disputes;
• Legal, technical, and organizational recommendations to mitigate and manage data risks;
• And most notably, the role of commercial arbitration as an effective, flexible, and confidential mechanism for resolving disputes involving data.

While the current legal instruments on data protection do not designate a specific dispute resolution body for data-related matters, under the Law on Commercial Arbitration, data-related disputes may fall within the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in the following circumstances:

(i) The dispute arises out of a commercial activity;
(ii) The dispute involves at least one party engaged in commercial activities; or
(iii) The law explicitly allows the dispute to be resolved by arbitration.

Through the insights shared by experts from the fields of law, technology, and business practice, the webinar not only deepened participants' understanding of data law development and enforcement trends in Vietnam but also provided valuable guidance on risk prevention, contract drafting, and dispute resolution through arbitration.

VTA extends its sincere appreciation to the supporting organizations—Dentons LuatViet, Nishimura & Asahi, Veron Group (USA), and Vietnam Data Protection – Privacy Compliance—for their expert contributions to the webinar, and to our esteemed speakers, guests, and participants for making this exchange both insightful and engaging.

Follow VTA for the latest updates and initiatives:

• Website: www.vtac.vn
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/vtac/
• Facebook Fanpage: https://www.facebook.com/vtac.vn

-VTA -

VTA’s Model Arbitration Clause: “Mọi tranh chấp phát sinh từ hoặc liên quan đến hợp đồng này sẽ được giải quyết bằng trọng tài tại Trung tâm Trọng tài Thương nhân Việt Nam (VTA) theo Quy tắc tố tụng trọng tài của Trung tâm này”. “Any dispute arising out of or in relation with this contract shall be resolved by arbitration at the Vietnam Traders Arbitration Centre (VTA) in accordance with its Rules of Arbitration”.

The Vietnam Trade Arbitration Center (VTA) is responsible for organizing and coordinating the resolution of business disputes through institutional arbitration, with jurisdiction over disputes including: (i) disputes arising from commercial activities between parties; (ii) disputes involving at least one party engaged in commercial activities; and (iii) disputes as prescribed by law to be resolved by arbitration.