Sharing News Articles in Việt Nam Could Incur a US$1,140 Fine

Many readers frequently share, screenshot, or quote passages from news articles on social media. Recently, however, internet users have been warning each other to abandon this habit—and even to block Vietnamese news sites entirely—“to avoid losing money unfairly.” [1]

This alarm stems from Decree 174/2026/NĐ-CP regarding administrative penalties in postal services, telecommunications, radio frequencies, electronic transactions, and information technology, which takes effect on July 1, 2026. [2] 

Under Point d, Clause 1, Article 95 of the decree, “providing” or “sharing” journalistic works on social media without the intellectual property rights holder’s consent may incur fines between 20 million and 30 million đồng (US$760 to US$1,140).

With the enforcement date imminent, the public remains confused by the provision’s lack of clarity. Many lawyers and journalists are also unsure where the boundary lies between ordinary online behavior and punishable conduct. More broadly, this situation highlights a persistent problem within Vietnamese law: the ambiguity of written prohibitions.

Public Confusion, Expert Uncertainty

As state media channels reported on the provision, a wave of questions emerged: Would penalties apply to sharing a hyperlink, quoting a few sentences, or taking a screenshot of an article? [3] [4]

To address these concerns, Lê Quang Tự Do, director of the Authority of Broadcasting, Television, and Electronic Information under the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, offered a public explanation. [5] He clarified that simply sharing a news link on social media does not constitute a violation because “a link is entirely not a journalistic work, but only a path to that work.” However, sharing that link alongside part or all of the article’s content without consent is punishable.

In addition, “repackaging” or rewriting news content for social media is considered a copyright violation. The director affirmed that authorization from the rights holder is mandatory, regardless of whether the act serves commercial purposes.

Despite the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism representative’s explanation, public confusion persists. Numerous lawyers and journalists have analyzed the provision and Tự Do’s remarks, generally concluding that the explanation remains vague and underscores the rule’s difficult interpretation.

Lưu Nhi Dũ, former managing editor of Người Lao Động newspaper, pointed out that if the official in charge of the area provides such a challenging-to-understand explanation, “how can ordinary people possibly understand it?” [6] 

He also questioned whether news outlets in Việt Nam translating foreign media would be committing copyright violations. Noting that media in Việt Nam are often “very careless” in sourcing foreign news, Dũ added that “some ‘journalists’ translate entire articles from foreign newspapers, put their names as the authors, and give no credit at all.” He concluded that a supplementary document is likely needed to guide the decree’s implementation.

Lawyer and arbitrator Nguyễn Tiến Lập characterized the provision as a typical “linguistic flaw” in legal documentation. [7] He outlined several reasons why the rule is problematic and requires amendment, citing legal inconsistencies—such as aiming to protect intellectual property without referencing the current Intellectual Property Law—alongside restrictions on public access to journalism and the conflation of civil and administrative relations.

Lập stressed that because the Ministry of Science and Technology drafted and issued the decree, a department director from the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism lacks the authority to interpret it. He argued that a legal document “must be understood correctly and consistently by everyone” and should be amended rather than individually explained if it is misunderstood.

Journalist and lawyer Hàn Ni, a former reporter for Sài Gòn Giải Phóng, had previously noted that “providing” and “sharing” are “broad and vague concepts that are not limited in the law’s definitions section.” [8] She questioned whether the press could fulfill its informational purpose if the public faces penalties for expanding news reach via social media. Additionally, she criticized the placement of civil copyright matters within an administrative-penalty provision designed for social media offenses like fake news, distortion, and pornography.

Echoing these sentiments, journalist Mai Phan Lợi stated that the current interpretation is “creating a vague fear within the online community” and risks “strangling the flow of official information.” [9] 

Many other journalists, lawyers, and citizens continue to raise similar concerns. [10] [11]

Making Rules or Setting a Trap?

Vague legal phrasing has clearly left even seasoned professionals confused and uncertain.

The most problematic phrase is “provide, share.” This broad terminology encompasses entirely different acts: from sharing a link or quoting a few lines to taking a screenshot, copying an excerpt, or reposting an entire news story.

To address such nuances, the European Union’s Directive 2019/790 explicitly excludes hyperlinking, noncommercial uses, and short excerpts of press publications from copyright infringement. [12] 

Similarly, copyright law in the United States relies on the doctrine of “fair use.” [13] Under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, using copyrighted works for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research may not constitute infringement. 

This is determined by four factors: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the original work’s potential market.

By contrast, Decree 174/2026 fails to make these critical distinctions. It forces the public—and potentially enforcement agencies—to guess which acts are permissible, often resulting in widespread self-censorship. 

Given hefty fines of up to 30 million đồng, the law must provide predictable guidance for common acts like sharing news. If a penalty provision misleads the majority of people into believing that merely sharing a link is punishable, the fault lies with the lawmakers, not the readers.

A sound legal policy must clearly delineate what is permitted, what is prohibited, and how citizens can comply. When people continue to advise each other against sharing anything but bare links despite multiple official explanations, the application of the law has reached an alarming state.

Article 7 of the current Law on the Promulgation of Legal Normative Documents dictates that legal language must “ensure accuracy, common usage, consistency, clear expression, and ease of understanding.” [14] Yet, legislative reality in Việt Nam shows this requirement is often just an attractive principle on paper. Many provisions rely on sweeping concepts without offering specific guidance on their application.

While this drafting style is convenient for regulators—allowing one provision to cover various emerging situations—it places citizens in a vulnerable position where they cannot be certain their conduct is lawful. 

The issue over “sharing journalistic works” echoes the long-standing issue of ambiguously written prohibitions carrying harsh penalties, such as Article 331 of the Penal Code or regulations concerning fake news and false information. [15] [16]

This ambiguity grants enforcement agencies the power to interpret the law at their discretion, pushing all the risk onto the public. Forced to live with the fear of committing an offense, citizens often resort to self-censoring even entirely lawful behavior.

When Explaining the Law Needs Extralegal Statements

The fact that Lê Quang Tự Do had to publicly clarify the provision exposes more than just public confusion; it highlights a major defect in the legislative process. A law should not require an extralegal statement for understanding. [17]

Fundamentally, people’s rights and obligations must be defined by official legal documents. A penalty provision must be transparent enough for citizens to recognize prohibited acts independently. If a primary document regulates general matters, a subsequent legal document—such as a decree detailing a law or a circular explaining a decree—must provide specific guidance.

A press statement from a state official is not a source of law and cannot create new exceptions or obligations. Thus, Lê Quang Tự Do’s remarks are merely a policy interpretation. They have reference value and may reflect the regulatory agency’s mindset, but they lack the binding force of a legal rule and cannot substitute for a properly issued provision. As lawyer Nguyễn Tiến Lập argued, misunderstood provisions must be formally amended, not individually explained. [18]

Consequently, a citizen’s rights cannot hinge on a post-issuance explanation provided just as a rule is about to take effect. The danger lies in unclear documents allowing extralegal statements to act as “soft law.” While citizens adjust their behavior based on these statements, regulators might rely on their own internal interpretations.

If an official statement changes, or if another leader provides a contradictory explanation, the public falls into uncertainty. They do not know whether to trust the written decree or the official’s statement or to wait for future guidelines. Legal compliance ceases to be about reading the law and becomes about guessing external interpretations.

This scenario is unacceptable for a penalty provision. The law cannot operate through “reassurance.” It cannot subject citizens to legal jeopardy and only later specify which actions are safe. When facing penalties of up to 30 million đồng, clarity is not just a technicality—it is a mandatory condition for ensuring justice, transparency, and the protection of the public.

---

Trường An wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on June 30, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine has the copyrights to the English translation.