A company launches a nationwide campaign with the slogan “No. 1 in Vietnam”. Sales spike — then a competitor files a complaint with the Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism. The outcome: an administrative fine, an order to take down the offending advertisements, and a forced public correction. The phrase that seemed like harmless marketing bravado turns out to be one of the most precisely regulated word groups in Vietnamese advertising law.
1. The legal ban on absolute superlatives
Clause 11, Article 8 of the Law on Advertising (as consolidated in Consolidated Document 04/VBHN-VPQH 2025) prohibits “advertising that uses the words ‘best’, ‘only’, ‘number one’ or words of similar meaning without lawful supporting documents as prescribed by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.” The prohibition applies equally to foreign-language equivalents — writing “No.1” or “the best” does not escape the rule.
Circular 12/2026/TT-BVHTTDL (effective 5 July 2026) details the implementing rules: absolute words are any Vietnamese or foreign-language words or phrases asserting a leading, exclusive or absolute position for a product, goods or service. To use them lawfully, the advertiser must hold lawful proof such as:
- Market survey results from a lawfully operating market research organization;
- Certificates from competent authorities or organizations at national, regional or international competitions, exhibitions or awards;
The proof must be independent, objective and truthful, must not mislead consumers, and — from 5 July 2026 — the supporting information must be disclosed on the advertising product itself.
2. Penalties and forced takedown
Violations are fined under Decree 38/2021/ND-CP on administrative sanctions in culture and advertising. The new rules effective 5 July 2026 tighten the regime: fines of 20 to 40 million VND for using absolute words without lawful proof, plus remedial measures including mandatory removal of the offending advertisements and public correction. In parallel, Article 45 of the Law on Competition 2018 treats misleading advertising as an act of unfair competition — competitors may complain to the competition authority and claim damages, and direct comparative advertising (Clause 10, Article 8) is separately prohibited.
3. How to use superlatives safely — or avoid them
Before any campaign containing “No.1”-type claims: (1) assemble the supporting dossier first — a self-declaration by the brand is not proof; only independent research or authoritative awards count; (2) disclose the basis on the ad product as required from July 2026; (3) consider the pre-assessment mechanism: Article 9 of the Law on Advertising allows businesses to proactively request the Advertising Product Appraisal Council (advisory body under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) to review complex or high-risk ad content before launch — a way to spot illegality before the campaign goes live.
The safest rewrite is usually the simplest: replace the absolute claim with a specific, verifiable fact. “The longest-lasting battery” becomes “5,000 mAh battery”; “the cheapest in the country” becomes a stated price. Facts can be checked; superlatives must be proven — and proof is expensive.
1. Does using “No.1” in an internal pitch deck risk a fine?
Administrative advertising liability targets public advertising to consumers and the market. Purely internal materials (pitch decks, internal reports) not disseminated to the public are outside the scope. But the moment the same wording appears on public channels — website, social media, packaging, point of sale — it becomes an advertising product subject to the rules. Keep superlatives out of any externally facing material unless proven.
2. Can a certificate from our industry association prove a “No.1” claim?
It depends on the organization’s authority and independence. Acceptable proof is typically a market survey by a lawfully operating research body, or certificates from competent authorities at recognized competitions, exhibitions or awards at national, regional or international scale. A certificate issued by an association the company itself funds or controls is unlikely to satisfy the independence and objectivity requirement, and enforcement practice is strict on this point.
3. Does advertising “No.1” in English escape the Vietnamese rule?
No. Circular 12/2026/TT-BVHTTDL expressly covers words or phrases in Vietnamese or foreign languages asserting a leading or absolute position. “No.1”, “the best”, “the only one” are treated identically to their Vietnamese equivalents. Switching languages to dodge the rule is itself an aggravating signal of intent.
4. Can a competitor sue for damages over our false “No.1” ad?
Yes, potentially. Misleading advertising falls under Article 45 of the Law on Competition 2018 on prohibited acts of unfair competition. A competitor that suffers demonstrable loss from a false “No.1” campaign may complain to the competition authority and pursue damages through the courts. The false claim is therefore a two-front risk: administrative fines plus civil liability to competitors.
5. We ran the “No.1” campaign before 5 July 2026 — are we safe?
Advertisements published before 5 July 2026 are judged under the rules in force at the time of publication; the new detailed proof and disclosure duties of Circular 12/2026 apply to ads disseminated from its effective date. However, campaigns still running after that date should be reviewed and brought into compliance, because continued dissemination counts as a continuing act. Do not assume legacy creative is grandfathered.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council
