Vietnam's enforcement architecture: Decree 17 and what is starting to work.

For software publishers operating in Vietnam, the practical question has historically had a simple, frustrating answer: enforcement was administrative, fines were low, and serious deterrence was not really available. That answer is changing — slowly enough that many publishers have not fully registered the shift, and substantially enough that those still treating Vietnam as administrative-only territory are working from an outdated model.

This briefing summarises the procedural changes since 2022, the two recent decisions that test whether they are working in practice, and what those decisions imply for publishers planning Vietnamese enforcement.

The 2022 IP Law and Decree 17

In June 2022, Vietnam passed the most significant amendment to its Intellectual Property Law in over a decade. The amended Law took effect on 1 January 2023, and was operationalised by Decree No. 17/2023/ND-CP issued in April 2023, which provides detailed implementing guidance on copyright and related rights.¹

Three features of the new framework matter for software publishers.

First, clearer subject-matter and ownership rules. The IP Law and Decree 17 provide more workable definitions of copyrightable subject matter and the framework for establishing ownership and infringement. For computer software — which falls under copyright protection in Vietnam, as in most jurisdictions — this materially reduces the friction in establishing rights and proving prima facie infringement.

Second, codified ISP liability. The framework now imposes explicit notice-and-takedown obligations on intermediary service providers, with administrative fines for non-compliance subsequently strengthened by Decree 341 (effective 2026) up to VND 150 million for ISPs failing to implement takedown procedures. For publishers concerned about online distribution of cracked or unlicensed software, this provides a concrete administrative lever where one was previously unworkable.

Third, civil remedies operating at scale. Damages awards under the new framework are now reaching levels that materially exceed what the administrative track can deliver. The mathematics of which track to pursue has changed.

The Binh Duong civil award (2022)

The figure itself is meaningful, but the comparison is more so. For two decades, the rational route was administrative — faster, cheaper, more predictable, but capped at deterrence levels that sophisticated infringers could absorb as a cost of doing business. The Binh Duong award changes that calculus. A defendant facing a civil award of this magnitude can no longer treat administrative sanctions as the ceiling of their exposure.

The damages methodology under Vietnamese practice further reinforces the point. Article 205 of the IP Law allows damages to be calculated by reference to the rights-holder's actual loss plus the defendant's profits, or alternatively by reference to the licensing price the defendant would have paid for legitimate use.³ The latter methodology — what the defendant should have paid the publisher to use the software properly — is the calculation that produces commercially meaningful damages awards.

The 2024 Hanoi criminal sentence

For software publishers, the relevance is indirect but real. Where civil remedies are slow or where the defendant is structurally judgment-proof, the existence of a working criminal track becomes a meaningful negotiating lever in pre-litigation engagements. The threat of a criminal track that historically did not function is one thing; the threat of a criminal track that has now produced an actual sentence is another.

What this signals for publishers planning Vietnamese enforcement

Three implications follow.

The choice of track now matters more than it used to. Publishers reflexively pursuing administrative remedies because that was historically the only route are leaving leverage on the table. The right choice now varies by matter — administrative for speed and signalling, civil for damages, criminal where coordination with authorities is feasible — and the analysis is no longer obvious.

Evidence preparation is where matters are won or lost. Vietnamese civil proceedings allow material damages calculated against actual loss and the defendant's profits, or against the licensing price. Both calculations require evidence of the defendant's commercial use of the software at scale. Publishers planning Vietnamese matters should be investing in evidence development at the same standard they apply in mainland Chinese matters — not at the lower standard the historical administrative track required.

Local counsel selection matters more than ever. The Vietnamese system rewards counsel familiar with the specific procedural rhythms of the People's Courts that handle these matters — and the courts of HCMC, Hanoi, Binh Duong, and Da Nang each have meaningfully different operating cultures. The Binh Duong court's willingness to award damages calibrated to actual harm is itself a fact about the Binh Duong court; it is not yet certain that other Vietnamese courts will follow.

A closing note on cadence

The framework described above is recent, and the case law applying it is sparse. Decree 17 took effect in April 2023; the Binh Duong award is from 2022 (under the prior framework, but pointing forward); the Hanoi criminal sentence is from April 2024. Vietnam is also continuing to develop a specialised IP Court, which when established will likely concentrate expertise and produce more consistent outcomes across cases. Publishers planning multi-year enforcement programmes in Vietnam should treat the current state as the floor, not the ceiling.