Vietnam will implement new regulations on online advertising, effective February 15, 2026, as part of Decree No. 342, which amends the national Advertising Law. A key provision of this decree mandates that video and moving image advertisements must include a skip option after a maximum waiting time of five seconds. Currently, some ads can last between seven and thirty seconds without the ability to skip.

The regulations also require that static image ads be immediately dismissible without any waiting period. Additionally, pop-up ads that obstruct content must feature clear close buttons that allow users to dismiss them with a single action and cannot use misleading symbols suggesting they can be skipped when they cannot.

Online platforms are obligated to provide visible icons and instructions for users to report illegal content or opt out of specific ad types. Advertisers and service providers must remove any non-compliant advertisements within twenty-four hours upon request from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism or other authorities. In cases related to national security concerns, immediate removal is required.

Failure to comply with these regulations may lead to enforcement actions by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism in conjunction with the Ministry of Public Security. Telecommunications companies and internet service providers are similarly required to restrict access to illegal advertisements within twenty-four hours following formal requests from authorities.

The decree also emphasizes stricter guidelines for advertisements related to products impacting health and the environment, including cosmetics, food products, medical supplies, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and alcoholic beverages. These measures reflect Vietnam's commitment to enhancing consumer protection in digital advertising while improving user experience across online platforms.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (vietnam) (cosmetics) (pesticides) (pharmaceuticals)

The article provides information about a new regulation in Vietnam regarding online advertising, specifically the ban on unskippable ads and the requirement for a skip button. However, its practical value to an ordinary reader is limited in several ways.

First, actionable information is sparse. While it outlines the new regulations set to take effect in 2026, it does not provide clear steps or choices that individuals can take right now. There are no immediate actions for consumers or advertisers to implement based on this decree since it is future-oriented and does not offer current resources or tools.

In terms of educational depth, the article presents surface-level facts about the regulation but lacks deeper explanations of why these changes are being made or their implications for consumers and advertisers. It mentions specific categories of products that will be regulated but does not delve into how these regulations will affect advertising practices or consumer safety comprehensively.

Regarding personal relevance, while the regulation may impact consumers' experiences with online ads in Vietnam, its immediate relevance is limited to those directly affected by digital advertising practices. For most readers outside of Vietnam or those who do not engage heavily with online advertisements related to health and environmental products, the article's importance may feel distant.

The public service function of this article is minimal as it primarily informs rather than guides action. It lacks warnings or safety guidance that could help readers navigate potential pitfalls associated with misleading advertisements before February 2026.

When evaluating practical advice, there are no concrete steps provided for readers to follow regarding how they might prepare for these changes in advertising standards. The guidance remains vague without any actionable tips on how individuals can protect themselves from misleading ads until the regulations come into effect.

Long-term impact appears limited as well; while these regulations may improve user experience once implemented, they do not offer strategies for individuals to adapt their behavior in anticipation of such changes. The focus seems solely on future compliance rather than current adaptation.

Emotionally and psychologically, the article does not create fear but also fails to provide clarity or constructive thinking around navigating current advertising challenges. It simply states facts without offering insight into managing potential frustrations with digital ads today.

There are elements of clickbait language present; however, they are subtle as the piece maintains a factual tone without exaggerated claims. Still, it lacks engagement that would encourage readers to think critically about their own interactions with online advertisements.

Lastly, there are missed opportunities within this article to guide readers further on understanding digital advertising dynamics today and preparing them for upcoming changes. Simple methods could include encouraging readers to familiarize themselves with existing ad reporting mechanisms on platforms they use frequently or advising them on recognizing misleading ad tactics currently employed by advertisers.

To add real value beyond what was presented in the article: individuals should actively educate themselves about digital marketing practices by researching common tactics used by advertisers today—such as emotional appeals and deceptive visuals—to better recognize when they might be manipulated by ads. They should also consider adjusting their privacy settings across platforms where possible and utilize ad-blocking tools if necessary until more stringent regulations come into play. Engaging critically with content consumed online can empower users against misleading advertisements even before regulatory changes occur.

The text uses the phrase "enhance consumer protection," which suggests that the regulation is entirely beneficial for consumers. This wording can create a positive feeling about the decree, making it seem like a purely good change without discussing potential downsides or impacts on businesses. It helps to frame the government in a positive light, as if they are solely focused on protecting people. This can mislead readers into thinking there are no negative consequences involved.

The statement "require a skip button to appear after a maximum waiting time of five seconds" presents the regulation as straightforward and user-friendly. However, it does not address how this might affect advertisers or platforms that rely on ad revenue. By focusing only on consumer convenience, it downplays any potential challenges or opposition from those who may be negatively impacted by such regulations. This selective emphasis creates an impression that all parties will benefit equally.

When mentioning "symbols that mislead viewers," the text implies there are deceptive practices currently in place without providing evidence of these practices being widespread or problematic. This language could lead readers to believe there is a significant issue with misleading ads when it may not be as prevalent as suggested. The choice of words here stirs concern and paints advertisers negatively while not offering any context about existing advertising standards.

The phrase "regulating advertisements related to goods and services that significantly impact health and the environment" highlights important issues but also implies that all current advertising in these sectors is harmful or misleading without proving this claim. It creates an image of urgency around regulation while ignoring any existing measures already in place for health and environmental safety. This framing can lead readers to think there is an immediate need for intervention when some regulations may already exist.

The text states, “allow users options to turn off or stop seeing inappropriate content,” which sounds empowering but does not explain what constitutes “inappropriate content.” Without clear definitions, this language could mislead readers into believing they have full control over their viewing experience when actual implementation might differ significantly from expectations. The vagueness here serves to promote a sense of user agency while lacking transparency about how decisions will be made regarding content appropriateness.

By stating “Vietnam's commitment to improving user experience,” the text suggests strong national dedication towards consumer welfare without acknowledging possible economic motivations behind such regulations. This phrasing can create an impression of altruism rather than considering other factors like market control or revenue generation for local businesses through stricter ad regulations. It frames Vietnam positively while obscuring complex motivations behind policy changes.

Using phrases like “non-compliant ads” implies wrongdoing by advertisers without specifying what compliance looks like under this new decree. Such language can foster distrust toward companies engaged in advertising, suggesting they intentionally deceive consumers rather than simply navigating complex legal landscapes. This choice of words shifts focus away from constructive dialogue about advertising practices toward suspicion and negativity surrounding them instead.

When discussing "visible guidelines for reporting non-compliant ads," the text assumes these guidelines will be effective but does not provide evidence supporting their practicality or enforcement mechanisms. By presenting this idea uncritically, it leads readers to believe that simply having guidelines will solve issues related to misleading advertisements without addressing potential flaws in implementation or oversight processes involved with enforcement efforts.

The text conveys several meaningful emotions, primarily centered around the themes of protection, regulation, and improvement. One prominent emotion is a sense of protection, which emerges from phrases like "enhance consumer protection" and "regulate online advertising more strictly." This emotion is strong as it underscores the government's commitment to safeguarding users from potentially harmful practices in digital advertising. The purpose of this emotional appeal is to build trust among consumers, reassuring them that their interests are being prioritized.

Another significant emotion present in the text is concern regarding misleading advertising practices. The mention of prohibiting symbols that mislead viewers into thinking they can skip an ad serves to evoke worry about deceptive tactics used by advertisers. This concern reinforces the need for regulation and aims to inspire action among stakeholders who may have previously overlooked such issues. By highlighting these deceptive practices, the text encourages readers to recognize the importance of transparency in advertising.

Additionally, there is an underlying sense of excitement about improving user experience through these new regulations. Phrases like "require a skip button" and "clear methods for users to close ads" suggest positive changes that will enhance how consumers interact with advertisements online. This excitement serves to motivate readers by presenting the decree as a progressive step toward a better digital environment.

The writer effectively uses emotional language throughout the text to persuade readers about the necessity and benefits of these regulations. Words like "ban," "require," and "prohibit" convey authority and urgency, making it clear that these changes are not merely suggestions but essential actions aimed at improving consumer welfare. The repetition of ideas related to user empowerment—such as providing options for reporting non-compliant ads—reinforces the message that consumers will have more control over their online experiences.

Moreover, comparisons between harmful products (like cosmetics or pharmaceuticals) and consumer safety highlight how serious this issue is while making it relatable for readers who may use such products themselves. By framing these regulations within a context that emphasizes health and environmental impacts, the writer amplifies emotional resonance with audiences concerned about their well-being.

Overall, through careful word choice and strategic emphasis on protective measures against misleading advertisements, the text guides readers toward feeling sympathetic towards consumer rights while also fostering trust in governmental oversight efforts. These emotions work together to encourage support for regulatory changes aimed at creating a safer digital landscape for all users.