VietnamOperational at national scale. The Court Virtual Assistant is in live use by judges for drafting support, retrieval, summarisation and automated case-file processing, rolled out to roughly 400 connection points, and the Supreme People's Court is pursuing sovereign AI on its own data. The governing instrument could not be located.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific
Vietnam
Developingcivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
Vietnam has the region's largest judicial AI deployment and no legal-practice rules to match it: the Supreme People's Court's virtual assistant is in nationwide judicial use, governed by policy statements rather than a published instrument. A national AI strategy was approved on 28 August 2026 and a draft AI law is under discussion; the Bar Federation has issued no guidance.
As of 2026-09-04, Vietnam has 1 binding rule, official guidance in 5 categories, 1 proposal and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover courts' own AI deployment. In 1 category we found nothing; in 12 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
Non-binding and journal-level. A Supreme People's Court journal article warns that ChatGPT does not access official case databases directly and that outputs must be independently verified. It is authored commentary, not an instrument.
A Supreme People's Court training conference on 20 January 2026 set the operating principle that AI does not replace judges, and that humans bear final responsibility for all results. This is a policy statement, not a published regulation.
Same source: humans bear final responsibility for every result, and the court's journal stresses that AI is a support tool rather than a substitute for independent judicial reasoning. No binding prohibition has been published.
Journal-level only. The court's journal tells judges not to enter un-anonymised personal data into these tools and not to analyse unpublished case files in them. No binding confidentiality rule for AI use was located.
Judicial side only. The Supreme People's Court ran a nationwide AI training conference for the court system on 20 January 2026 across roughly 400 connection points. Nothing equivalent was found for lawyers.
A draft Law on Artificial Intelligence is under discussion, and the Supreme People's Court journal analyses its damages and liability provisions, but the draft text and its legislative status were not opened. Decision 1671/QD-TTg of 28 August 2026 approves the national AI strategy to 2030 with a vision to 2045, superseding Decision 127/QD-TTg.
No Vietnamese decision involving AI-fabricated citations was found as of 4 September 2026; the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database contains no Vietnamese entry.
Not substantiated. No filing-disclosure rule was located; the Supreme People's Court's own site (toaan.gov.vn) was unreachable from this environment.
Not substantiated. No Vietnamese court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was located.
Not substantiated; no AI or deepfake evidence rule located.
Not substantiated. The Code of Professional Ethics and Conduct of Vietnamese Lawyers was not opened.
Not substantiated. No Vietnamese supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work was located.
Not substantiated. No Vietnamese requirement to inform clients of AI use was located.
Not substantiated. No Vietnamese rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work was located.
Not substantiated. No Vietnamese determination on consumer AI legal products was located.
Leaning negative. A site search of the Vietnam Bar Federation for tri tue nhan tao surfaced only a LAWASIA 2023 conference report on AI's impact on the profession, and no Federation rule or guidance.
Vietnam has a Law on Personal Data Protection (2025) and Decree 13/2023/ND-CP, but neither official text could be opened from this environment (moj.gov.vn returned HTTP 403 and the government gazette portal search could not be driven), so no AI-specific application is recorded.
Not established. A VIAC site search returned no AI-related items, but its search parameter does not filter, so this is not evidence of absence.
Not substantiated. The sovereign-AI framing implies a preference for in-house and state systems, but no procurement instrument was located.
Official documents recorded for Vietnam (1)
- Decision No. 1671/QD-TTg approving the National Strategy on Artificial Intelligence to 2030, vision to 2045
Prime Minister of Vietnam · revised 2026-08-28 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Vietnam
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Vietnam" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/vn (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.