U.S. INVESTIGATES VIỆT NAM’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICES: A WARNING OR A VERDICT?
The Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Section 301 investigation acts as a clear warning, even if it is not an immediate “verdict.” It signals that the United States is escalating pressure on Việt Nam over intellectual property protection and enforcement.
Việt Nam has enacted laws to address these violations; however, current enforcement capacity remains weak and fails to provide a sufficient deterrent. This is particularly evident in the areas of online copyright infringement, counterfeit goods, unlicensed software, and e-commerce.
If Việt Nam only implements temporary measures instead of substantive reforms, it will face an increased risk of United States trade sanctions.
A Warning or a Verdict?
On May 29, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) launched an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to examine Việt Nam’s acts, policies, and practices regarding intellectual property protection and enforcement.
This section grants the USTR the authority to investigate conditions deemed “unfair,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” if they burden or restrict US commerce.
Regarding the probe, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated: “We need to see Vietnam resolve these longstanding concerns, including on a range of IP enforcement issues, in a manner that is sustained and that deters future IP infringements.”
He added that the investigative process could take several months and that he intends to consult President Donald Trump if “responsive action” becomes necessary.
The initiation of this investigation, however, does not guarantee that Việt Nam will immediately face tariffs. The USTR will only decide whether to take retaliatory measures after the investigation concludes.
That final decision will also rely heavily on bilateral consultations, stakeholder feedback, and broader political calculations within U.S.–Việt Nam relations.
Regardless, in today’s highly uncertain trade environment, this move is far from a routine technical procedure. It is a distinct warning to Việt Nam. Washington is steadily escalating its scrutiny, transitioning from annual intellectual property complaints to a formal investigative process that could ultimately result in tariffs or other trade restrictions.
Việt Nam’s Violations
At the heart of the issue is the USTR’s assertion that Việt Nam has failed to adequately address longstanding intellectual property protection and enforcement concerns.
These issues fall into five main categories: online copyright infringement, counterfeit and pirated goods, border enforcement, the use of unlicensed software, and the lack of criminal penalties for cable and satellite signal piracy.
Việt Nam has, in practice, undertaken several legal reforms, most notably the amendments to the 2022 Law on Intellectual Property that took effect in 2023.
Leading up to the investigation, Prime Minister Lê Minh Hưng directed ministries and agencies to intensify efforts against online copyright infringement and counterfeit goods, specifically targeting violations related to software, films, music, television programs, online games, and counterfeit products.
Furthermore, on May 26, the Customs Department issued Official Dispatch No. 16727/CHQ-GSQL. This mandate requires inspections and the suspension of customs clearance procedures for goods showing signs of counterfeiting or the infringement of intellectual property and industrial property rights.
Despite these actions, Washington maintains that these recent efforts are insufficiently sustainable, lack a proper deterrent effect, and fail to adequately protect the interests of U.S. businesses, creators, and rights holders.
The USTR argues that Việt Nam’s continued heavy reliance on administrative penalties leaves civil and criminal measures too weak to deter violations.
For example, fines and penalties for online copyright infringement are deemed insufficiently severe. The agency also highlights the persistent prevalence of counterfeit goods in traditional markets, on e-commerce platforms, and across livestream sales in Việt Nam as evidence of weak anti-counterfeiting enforcement.
Reasons Why the United States is Taking Action
The rationale behind Washington’s latest move is clear and multifaceted.
First, intellectual property remains a core economic interest for the United States, particularly within sectors such as software, entertainment, pharmaceuticals, technology, consumer brands, and digital content.
Consequently, when a rapidly expanding market like Việt Nam fails to enforce intellectual property adequately, U.S. companies inevitably view the failure as a direct erosion of their competitive advantage.
Second, Việt Nam has become an important link in global supply chains and a major source of imports for the United States.
This current investigation arrives as the U.S. trade deficit with Việt Nam hit $54.8 billion in just the first three months of the year, a figure that exceeds the deficits with both China and Mexico during the same timeframe. [12] Therefore, broader concerns regarding trade deficits and the rebalancing of global supply chains now inextricably link intellectual property issues.
Third, the Trump administration is increasingly utilizing legal trade instruments aggressively. As demonstrated by the Section 301 investigation into China during Trump’s first term, this specific tool can effectively serve as the foundation for large-scale tariff measures.
Is Việt Nam’s Response Sufficient?
To date, Việt Nam’s diplomatic response has focused primarily on de-escalation. Seeking to downplay the severity of the issue, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the investigation as a standard procedure under United States law, noting that any concerns will be addressed through consultations.
While reaffirming its commitment to strengthening intellectual property enforcement, Hà Nội also urged the U.S. to conduct an objective, fair assessment that recognizes Việt Nam’s recent efforts.
These diplomatic commitments, however, are undermined by the government’s limited enforcement capacity on the ground.
Despite recent amendments to the Intellectual Property Law, actual enforcement remains highly fragmented across a maze of entities: the police, customs authorities, market surveillance forces, courts, specialized agencies, local governments, and digital platforms. This wide dispersal of responsibility inevitably results in reactive, rather than systematic and sustainable, enforcement.
Moreover, while these fines can be issued quickly, they offer no meaningful deterrence because they are consistently lower than the illicit profits generated by the infringements. Consequently, in fast-moving sectors like digital content, software, and e-commerce, the sheer pace of violations easily outstrips the speed of administrative enforcement.
At a time when Washington is aggressively deploying legal trade mechanisms, a failure to resolve these intellectual property violations significantly heightens the risk of tariffs and other trade penalties.
This particular case underscores that institutional reform and robust law enforcement are no longer optional; they are essential conditions if Việt Nam wishes to safeguard its critical position within global supply chains.
This Section 301 investigation serves as a test of Việt Nam’s capacity for institutional reform amid deep international integration. To navigate this challenge, Hà Nội must strengthen its intellectual property infrastructure more comprehensively.
Key steps should include prioritizing crackdowns on major infringing platforms, upgrading digital investigative capabilities, and fostering tighter coordination among disjointed enforcement agencies.
Furthermore, the state must clarify thresholds for criminal prosecution and legally mandate that e-commerce platforms assume greater responsibility for the counterfeit goods they host.
Successfully managing this crisis would allow Việt Nam to mitigate the risk of U.S. sanctions, bolster international investor confidence, and elevate competitive standards within its digital economy. However, if the government’s strategy remains merely reactive, punitive economic measures from the United States will become an unavoidable reality.
Information take from: https://thevietnamese.org/2026/06/u-s-investigates-viet-nams-intellectual-property-practices-a-warning-or-a-verdict/
Spanish