A $1,140 Fine for Boycotts: How Việt Nam’s Draft Decree Threatens Consumer Rights

As the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) drafts a new decree to penalize those who mobilize business boycotts, the Consumer Protection Association has remained completely silent. [1]

The proposed decree addresses administrative penalties in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. 

Specifically, Clause 2, Article 13 has drawn attention for stipulating fines of 20–30 million đồng (approximately $760–$1,140 USD) for anyone calling for or inciting boycotts against an organization’s products, services, or brands if the action causes material or reputational damage.

This is a blanket provision with no exemption clause. Therefore, any boycott resulting in damage could incur penalties, regardless of whether the root cause was the wrongdoing of the business itself.

If this provision passes, it will transform the legitimate right of resistance of millions of consumers into a violation subject to administrative sanctions.

A Legitimate Form of Consumer Resistance

The right to boycott is arguably the most essential tool consumers have to defend their interests. While consumers make up half of the supply-demand equation, they inherently occupy a weaker position, lacking the resources, legal capacity, and product information that large businesses possess.

Hence, boycotting a company’s products or services is a natural response to unethical conduct, legal violations, or actions that harm the community. It serves as a mechanism to force businesses into aligning with public interests. 

However, an isolated boycott has little impact. To create genuine pressure and effect change, collective solidarity is required. Successful campaigns almost inevitably stem from community mobilization and public calls to action against corporate misconduct.

For that reason, penalizing these public calls to action effectively neutralizes the right to boycott. Even if individuals remain silent and refuse to purchase products, the threat of punishment will still deter them from speaking out or organizing. Without the ability to mobilize collectively, communities lose the leverage necessary to hold businesses accountable for their actions.

Boycotts That Delivered Unexpected Results

Consumer boycotts frequently deliver unexpected and powerful results, as demonstrated by the recent backlash against Hạ Long Canned Foods. 

In early 2026, the company’s general director was arrested following the discovery that more than 130 tons of meat infected with African swine fever and Salmonella bacteria were being prepared for production. 

With more than two tons of this infected pork already processed into canned goods and sold on the market, public calls to boycott the nearly 70-year-old brand spread rapidly across social media. For the average consumer, boycotting products suspected of poor quality was their only means of protection before those products reached their family dinner tables.

Retailers simultaneously pulled the products, demonstrating that the response was not merely an emotional reaction but a necessary self-protection mechanism against unsafe food for their customers. Consumers quickly abandoned Hạ Long Canned Foods, which had been one of the country’s most trusted brands.

Product quality is not the only catalyst; ethical and political violations also trigger similar outrage. In March 2025, the Chinese milk tea brand Chagee faced a massive boycott before even opening its first store in Việt Nam after the online community discovered the “nine-dash line” map on its application. [2] In response, Chagee was forced to cancel its initial launch in the center of District 1, Hồ Chí Minh City. 

Four months later, media reports indicated that authorities had fined Chagee Việt Nam 60 million đồng (approximately $2,280 USD) for the unlawful map as the company attempted to restart operations in District 7 (former), Hồ Chí Minh City. [3] 

However, the public boycott had preceded these government sanctions by four months, acting swiftly to condemn a serious violation of sovereignty.

Historically, reputable businesses have faced similar fates over legal and ethical violations. The state-run press notably championed a boycott against Vedan after the company spent years discharging waste into the Thị Vải River and delaying compensation. 

Similarly, the beverage company Tân Hiệp Phát suffered enormous losses following the “fly in the bottle” incident, where a customer was sentenced to seven years in prison after discovering a fly in a beverage. [4] 

Although Tân Hiệp Phát won the legal battle, the ensuing boycott severely damaged its reputation and caused enormous losses. [5] 

These cases illustrate that public resistance serves as an important mechanism for social oversight and corporate accountability.

***
While preventing fabricated or unfairly competitive boycott campaigns is necessary to protect the business environment, implementing a blanket regulation could yield the opposite result. Without a mechanism to distinguish between truth and falsehood, or good faith and malice, such a policy directly infringes upon the rights of millions of consumers across Việt Nam.

Policymakers must not rely solely on whether a boycott causes financial or reputational harm to a business. They need to clarify underlying factors such as fault, motive, and the factual accuracy of the information driving the boycott. 

Above all, the right to criticize and mobilize collective opposition against wrongdoing is more than a basic right of citizens. It serves as a corrective mechanism that ensures a transparent and healthy market.

---

Lê Thanh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on April 22, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.