Abstract: This article focuses on analyzing and clarifying recent developments in commercial and economic law in the United States under the impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It covers key areas such as commercial law as it relates to e-commerce, consumer protection, antitrust law, intellectual property law, financial regulation, securities regulation, banking and credit laws, and tax law. In addition to analyzing and assessing trends in the evolution of commercial and economic law in the United States, the article distills and offers practical recommendations for Vietnam regarding amendments and supplementation of its legal regulations in corresponding areas. The objective is to enable Vietnam to better adapt to the transformations brought about by Industry 4.0 and to facilitate a successful transition into a new era of national development. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, Vietnam aspires to build a prosperous and strong socialist nation that prioritizes democracy, equality, and civilization, comparable to the world's leading powers.
Keywords: Fourth Industrial Revolution, United States, commercial law, economic law, Vietnam.
1. Introduction
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) is unfolding vigorously across the globe, bringing with it a profound wave of transformation in technology, modes of production, and business models. The development of artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain technology, the Internet of Things (IoT), and other advanced technologies has fundamentally altered the ways humans interact, produce, and consume. This is not merely a technological leap but also presents numerous new challenges to the existing legal system, particularly in economic sectors such as commerce, competition, intellectual property, finance, taxation, and banking.
The United States, as one of the world’s leading developed economies, has made significant efforts to modernize and improve its economic legal system in order to adapt to these changes. Legal provisions in the areas of commerce, competition law, intellectual property law, financial management, and taxation are continuously adjusted to ensure that businesses can leverage the benefits of new technologies while also protecting consumer rights and the environment. For instance, new statutes on personal data protection and regulations governing transactions utilizing blockchain technology have been enacted, thereby facilitating the growth of the digital economy.
In Vietnam, although the legal framework governing commerce, competition, intellectual property, finance, taxation, and banking has made important strides in promoting socio-economic development in recent years, the country still faces many challenges in adjusting its legal system to align with the demands of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and to meet the requirements of sustainable development.
2. Overview of the U.S. Economy and Characteristics of U.S. Economic Law Prior to the Fourth Industrial Revolution
2.1. Overview of the U.S. Economy Before Industry 4.0
Before the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the U.S. economy was recognized as one of the world’s leading market economies and a central driver of global economic growth. With a mechanism that encouraged free market competition, protected innovation, and promoted international integration, the United States established a solid foundation to lead in industry, technology, and services.
In the years prior to 2010, the U.S. economy achieved remarkable accomplishments while maintaining its pioneering role in research and innovation. According to 2010 data, the U.S. GDP reached approximately USD 14.96 trillion, accounting for nearly 23% of global GDP, thereby retaining its position as the world’s largest economy. Manufacturing, once the backbone of the economy, experienced a relative decline in its share of GDP—from about 15% in 1997 to only 12% in 2015.[1] In contrast, the service sectors, particularly finance, insurance, real estate, leasing, professional and business services, became the main engines of growth. The information technology and telecommunications sectors grew strongly, laying the groundwork for the digital revolution with a technological boom in Silicon Valley—home to leading tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Google. The United States not only built an innovative startup ecosystem but also spearheaded the development of new technologies such as AI, software, and global information networks. An important driver of U.S. economic growth was its prioritization of research and development (R&D), which created a basis for sustained innovation. In 2010, the United States accounted for 36.2% of global R&D spending, with investments reaching USD 405 billion, far surpassing any other country in the world.[2] At the same time, a flexible and transparent financial policy system attracted international capital, enabling U.S. enterprises to expand their markets globally. However, the U.S. economy during this period also faced significant challenges. The global financial crisis of 2007–2009 caused severe damage, leading to a 4.3% GDP decline in 2009 and an unemployment rate of up to 10%.[3] The United States had to implement emergency economic stimulus packages to stabilize the situation, restore market confidence, and quickly recover the economy.
In summary, the U.S. economy before Industry 4.0 stood out not only for its global leadership, high level of integration, and diverse economic ecosystem but also for its exceptional innovative capacity. This served as a crucial foundation for the United States to maintain its leadership in the global industrial and technological era.
2.2. Characteristics of U.S. Economic Law
To build and maintain a strong, free, competitive, innovative, and deeply integrated economy like that of the United States, law plays a foundational role and serves as the “backbone” of the entire socio-economic system, creating a favorable and transparent legal environment to promote international integration. The role of U.S. law in the economy is reflected in several key characteristics as follows:
First, ensuring free, fair, and equal competition among economic actors
U.S. economic law emphasizes free but fair and equal competition among all participants in the economy. This is a core principle of the market economy. Antitrust statutes—most notably the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) and the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)—established effective mechanisms to prevent monopolies and restrict unfair competition by large corporations. These laws enhanced market transparency and protected small businesses in the U.S. market, thereby fostering innovation and effective competition.
Second, protecting intellectual property rights and encouraging innovation
The United States strictly protects intellectual property rights and promotes innovation through statutes such as the Copyright Act, the Patent Act, and international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. The protection of patent rights provided a critical incentive to drive R&D activities. According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), before Industry 4.0, the United States consistently ranked among the world’s top countries in the number of patents registered annually, accounting for about 22% of global patent output.[4]
Third, creating a favorable legal environment for attracting investment and international trade
U.S. law demonstrates a clear openness to trade and international investment through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, as well as domestic legal provisions aligned with global standards. Prior to 2010, the United States was the world’s leading destination for foreign investment, accounting for nearly 20% of global capital inflows in 2009.[5] This reflects the transparency and stability of the U.S. legal environment, which strongly attracted international investors.
Fourth, strict but flexible regulation and economic management
U.S. law maintains a balance between strict regulation and flexibility, enabling the government to adjust the economy in response to domestic and international fluctuations. For example, during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008) was promptly enacted and implemented to address the urgent situation, provide financial institution bailouts, and minimize negative impacts on the economy.[6] This demonstrates the United States’ ability to use law as a flexible and effective regulatory tool in times of economic crisis.
Fifth, promoting transparency and accountability of economic actors
U.S. law imposes requirements for transparency and accountability to protect the interests of consumers, investors, and stakeholders. For instance, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (2002) strengthened financial transparency requirements, corporate controls, and penalties for violations,[7] thereby enhancing investor confidence and restoring market stability after the crisis.
In conclusion, with key features such as ensuring competition, protecting intellectual property rights, creating a favorable legal environment, and promoting transparency, U.S. economic law provided the foundation for the United States to become the world’s leading economy on the eve of Industry 4.0. These characteristics also laid the groundwork for the U.S. to achieve deep international integration and maintain a pioneering role in the global economy.
3. New Developments in U.S. Economic Law during the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Recommendations for Viet Nam
3.1. New Developments in Commercial Law on E-Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Online Contracts and Recommendations for Viet Nam
3.1.1. New Developments
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0), with its breakthrough development of information technology, has completely transformed the way commerce operates globally. In the United States, where e-commerce and digital platforms have grown rapidly, new issues have emerged relating to consumer protection, data security, and smart contracts, prompting the modernization of the legal framework on commerce to ensure transparency, safety, and efficiency in the online environment.
One of the most important legal foundations for e-commerce in the United States is the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act, 2000).[8] This Act recognizes the legal validity of electronic signatures and electronic records, thereby laying the groundwork for legitimizing electronic transactions. Under the E-Sign Act, parties may sign and perform online contracts with the same legal effect as traditional contracts. However, the Act is effective only if the parties clearly consent to the use of electronic means. The case Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2001), affirmed that “a person cannot be bound by the terms of a contract if they have not had a real opportunity to review them.”[9] This serves as an important basis for protecting consumers as electronic commercial transactions increase. At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), as amended and applied to the field of e-commerce, has granted broader powers to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to address fraudulent and deceptive online practices. The FTC has made significant progress in handling pressing issues such as false advertising, ambiguous refund policies, or nontransparent trading activities.[10] A notable example is FTC v. LeanSpa, LLC (2016), in which LeanSpa, a company marketing weight-loss products, was found to have defrauded consumers through deceptive advertising. The FTC required the violators to return millions of U.S. dollars to affected consumers,[11] demonstrating the strong legal protection afforded to consumers in the context of digital commerce. Together with the E-Sign Act, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) also plays a vital role in providing a legal framework for electronic contracts, ensuring that electronic contracts have the same legal validity as traditional contracts.[12] However, the law requires that the terms of electronic contracts be presented transparently and clearly to consumers. The case Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.[13] illustrates this requirement, as the court ruled that clicking “agree” through online interfaces is valid only if the terms are properly displayed and the user is fully informed. This ensures the responsibility of digital platforms to create a transparent commercial environment. Furthermore, as early as 2003, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act)[14] was enacted to regulate spam and protect consumers against deceptive, fraudulent, or misleading marketing content. The CAN-SPAM Act establishes specific rules for senders of commercial emails and grants recipients the right to opt out of receiving such emails.
The development of e-commerce has led to the widespread collection and use of personal data[15] by e-commerce companies seeking to leverage user data for business purposes, but it has also raised the risk of illegal collection and use of personal information. California became the first U.S. state to enact the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA Act) in 2018,[16] one of the first comprehensive privacy laws in the United States. This Act grants consumers greater rights over how businesses collect, use, and share their personal information in the digital environment. Consumers are granted specific rights, such as the right to know what data is being collected, the right to request deletion of personal data, and the right to opt out of the sale of their data to third parties. These provisions not only apply in California but also have a broad impact on major companies operating throughout the United States. This was illustrated in the case where Facebook was fined USD 5 billion by the FTC in 2019 for violating user privacy.[17]
Recently, smart contracts have been applied to enhance the protection of personal privacy in e-commerce. Smart contracts allow for the automation of compliance processes for data protection regulations, such as automatically granting or revoking access to personal data, resolving complaints regarding data collection and use, and ensuring that all actions related to data remain transparent and immutable thanks to blockchain technology.[18] As a result, digital transactions and personal data processing become safer and more transparent, while enhancing users’ control over their own data, consistent with the spirit of the CCPA Act
3.1.2. Recommendations for Viet Nam
From the U.S. experience in building and improving commercial law in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Viet Nam can draw many valuable lessons for developing an appropriate legal framework aimed at effective and sustainable digital commerce.
First, it is necessary to establish a clear legal framework recognizing the legal validity of e-commerce transactions, electronic signatures, and online contracts, similar to the E-Sign Act and UETA in the United States. This is particularly important as transactions in Viet Nam increasingly shift to digital platforms while there remain legal gaps concerning the validity of certain acts and electronic contracts concluded over the Internet. Specifically, the Law on Electronic Transactions 2023 provides for the conclusion and performance of electronic contracts but does not clearly recognize their validity in specific cases, causing difficulties for the parties and giving rise to disputes that lead courts to declare such contracts void.[19]
Second, consumer protection in e-commerce transactions must be a key focus of legislation, similar to the amendments to the FTC Act in the United States. Viet Nam should introduce specific regulations to control fraudulent online commercial practices, deceptive advertising, or nontransparent commercial activities, including the use of spam for marketing. In addition, the application of strict sanctions for fraudulent activities in e-commerce, as demonstrated in the case of FTC v. LeanSpa, LLC (2014), will serve as an essential tool to create a safe digital commercial environment for consumers.
Moreover, safeguarding personal information and data privacy in e-commerce must be given top priority as Viet Nam moves deeper into the digital era. Following the example of the CCPA Act, which establishes specific privacy rights—such as the requirement to disclose and ensure transparency in the collection and processing of personal data, and the right to refuse or request deletion of information from relevant parties—Viet Nam should urgently enact a Personal Data Protection Law rather than relying solely on a Government Decree to regulate this matter.[20]
Finally, Viet Nam should pay close attention to developing regulations related to smart contracts, blockchain commerce, digital currency, and artificial intelligence (AI), which are shaping the future of global digital commerce. Although the United States has not yet fully completed its legal framework, it is expanding regulations to effectively govern these modern electronic transactions, particularly regarding the determination of legal liability and dispute resolution.[21]
3.2. New Developments in U.S. Antitrust Law during the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Suggestions for Vietnam
3.2.1. New Developments
In the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the United States has faced major challenges from the growing monopolies of large technology companies (Big Tech) and their ability to manipulate the market by exploiting data and exercising power over online platforms.[22] Corporations such as Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta (formerly Facebook) have been subject to close government scrutiny to ensure that they do not abuse their dominant positions to control the market. As mentioned, the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act remain applicable in the digital technology environment but have been adjusted to address new challenges, particularly regarding the data ecosystem on digital platforms.Specifically, based on the provisions of these two Acts, the case United States v. Google LLC (2020) was brought by the government with allegations that Google abused its monopoly position in online search and digital advertising. The government asserted that Google engaged in practices violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, such as paying device manufacturers to set Google as the default search engine, thereby maintaining control over nearly 90% of the search market.[23]
Beyond controlling traditional monopolistic behavior, another important aspect is the development of regulations concerning data and competition on online platforms. The possession and manipulation of user data and personal information have become tools for creating unfair competitive advantages for large technology companies (Big Tech), making it necessary to incorporate principles of data privacy, information, and transparency into antitrust law. The Sherman Act has been applied to address acts of data acquisition intended to strengthen monopoly power. For example, in FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2020), the government sued Facebook for acquiring competitors such as Instagram and WhatsApp to eliminate competition from smaller platforms. According to the FTC, Meta’s acquisition strategy not only limited innovation but also exploited data from billions of users to maintain its dominance in the advertising and social media markets.[24]
Furthermore, new legislative proposals have been introduced, most notably the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA Act) in 2021, co-sponsored by Senator Amy Klobuchar (Democrat) and Senator Chuck Grassley (Republican). The bill aims to enhance online competition and limit the power of major technology companies, considered “digital gatekeepers.” Its objectives include expanding consumer choice, facilitating new market entrants, and promoting transparency in online competition regulations.[25] Under this bill, corporations such as Amazon and Apple would be prohibited from manipulating the market by prioritizing their own products on platforms they own—for example, Amazon prioritizing its private-label products over those of third-party sellers. Although the AICOA Act has not yet been passed,[26] it has played a significant role in shaping policy, fostering public debate, increasing reform pressure on the U.S. tech industry, and demonstrating a new wave of antitrust efforts to balance technological innovation with fair competition.[27]
These changes not only regulate direct competitive behavior but also protect small businesses from being pushed out of the market by Big Tech
3.2.2. Suggestions for Vietnam
From the U.S. experience in controlling Big Tech and regulating competition in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Vietnam can draw several important lessons to improve its competition law system to address the challenges of digital transformation.
First, Vietnam needs to focus on developing and enforcing strict regulations to monitor monopolistic practices in digital technology sectors, particularly companies that hold dominant market positions such as e-commerce platforms, search engines, or social networks. Similar to the United States v. Google LLC (2020) case, where Google was accused of abusing its dominant position to manipulate the search and digital advertising markets, Vietnam must ensure that Big Tech—including international companies operating in Vietnam—do not engage in unfair competition such as eliminating rivals through acquisitions or imposing conditions that restrict the rights of third parties on their platforms.
In addition, creating a specialized legal framework addressing the power of data in competition is essential. Drawing from the FTC v. Facebook (2020) case, where the FTC accused Facebook of acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp to strengthen its monopoly by exploiting the data of billions of users, Vietnam can supplement regulations on fair and transparent data use, adding clear rules to prevent the misuse of data as a tool to create inequality or hinder the emergence of new competitors, while also ensuring consumer privacy and rights.
Moreover, Vietnam should consider legislative proposals similar to the AICOA Act to regulate digital platforms that act as both “players and referees.” Accordingly, there should be rules to prevent companies owning digital platforms from prioritizing their own products or services to the detriment of third parties. For example, large enterprises such as e-commerce marketplaces or online delivery applications should not be allowed to give preferential visibility to their own products to dominate market share over small or emerging providers. Such regulations would protect fairness in the digital market and create opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to grow.
Additionally, Vietnam should incorporate regulations concerning new technologies such as AI, blockchain, and smart contracts (hợp đồng thông minh), as these areas can create innovative market mechanisms but also pose new competition risks. In practice, many new technologies such as AI and blockchain can be used to establish soft monopolies or create unfair barriers in the market. For instance, AI can be used to collect consumer data in non-transparent ways, enable price discrimination, or manipulate consumer behavior, leading to market distortion. Blockchain and smart contracts also present challenges in monitoring transactions and enforcing the law when these transactions occur outside traditional regulatory frameworks.[28] Therefore, legislation should not only protect technological creativity and development but also prevent abusive practices, ensuring a healthy competitive environment.
3.3. New Developments in U.S. Intellectual Property (IP) Law during the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Suggestions for Vietnam
3.3.1. New Developments
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the strong growth of AI, blockchain, IoT, and digital platforms, has generated new issues for intellectual property (IP) law such as the ownership of works created by AI, the protection of intellectual assets in the digital environment, and the expansion of patent protection to advanced technologies.
First, intellectual property rights over AI-generated works.
Under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.), works created by humans are recognized and protected by copyright law, but the Act does not directly address works generated by AI. The case Thaler v. Hirshfeld (2021) clarified this issue when Stephen Thaler, the creator of the AI system DABUS, applied for patents for inventions generated by his AI. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and later the court rejected the application, reasoning that an “inventor” must be a natural person.[29] This ruling has left AI-generated products in a legal “gray area” without clear protection mechanisms.[30] As a result, products such as books, paintings, or technological designs created by AI face the risk of being freely copied. Experts have proposed two solutions: (1) reforming patent law to recognize dual ownership (combining the AI developer and the operator) with a special registration mechanism, or (2) treating AI as an advanced tool so that ownership belongs to the end user.[31]
Second, blockchain and digital assets pose new copyright challenges.
Blockchain enables decentralized and transparent storage and protection of intellectual property, but it does not eliminate copyright infringements on digital platforms. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA, 1998)[32] has been applied to handle online copyright violations, typically through the “notice-and-takedown” mechanism under Section 512 for removing infringing content. However, the case Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. (2018) demonstrated the inadequacy of current regulations for complex digital transactions. ReDigi, a digital platform allowing users to resell digital music they owned, was accused of copyright infringement even though it claimed to merely transfer “legitimate ownership” from seller to buyer. The court ruled that data reproduction, regardless of intent, constitutes copyright infringement, highlighting the need to amend and expand existing laws to regulate new types of digital transactions.[33]
Third, NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) create challenges in distinguishing between token ownership and copyright of the digital work.
By nature, an NFT only certifies ownership of a unique digital version of a work and does not automatically transfer reproduction, distribution, or commercialization rights to the original work unless expressly stated in a smart contract.[34] A notable dispute is Miramax, LLC v. Quentin Tarantino (2022),[35] which clarified the legal risks when an NFT seller lacks sufficient licensing rights related to copyright. In this case, Quentin Tarantino was sued by Miramax for selling NFTs related to the original screenplay of the film Pulp Fiction, even though Miramax claimed to own the underlying copyright. This case exemplifies the conflict between token ownership (NFTs) and copyright, illustrating the current legal challenge as blockchain technology develops. To address this issue, experts have recommended integrating automatic smart contract clauses to clarify the limits of NFT rights regarding reproduction, distribution, or profit sharing from transactions. This approach not only increases transparency but also helps reduce legal disputes. To improve the legal framework, draft legislation such as the NFT Licensing Clarification Act (2023) in California has been introduced to require sellers to clearly disclose the IP rights associated with NFTs, ensuring transparency and protecting buyers’ rights.[36] In addition, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) issued key recommendations in its 2023 report NFTs and Intellectual Property, emphasizing that token ownership must be clearly separated from the underlying copyright and that NFT platforms must publicly disclose legal information to mitigate risks.[3
3.3.2. Suggestions for Vietnam
From these new U.S. developments in IP law during the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Vietnam can draw the following lessons to improve its own IP legal framework:
First, clarify IP rights for AI-generated works.
Referring to the ruling in Thaler v. Hirshfeld (2021), Vietnam should address the legal “gray area” of AI-generated products. The current IP Law could be amended in two directions: (1) recognize dual ownership (combining the AI developer and the operator), or (2) treat AI as a supporting tool, granting ownership to the end user. At the same time, Vietnam should establish a special registration mechanism for AI inventions, similar to the EU’s IPChain model, to ensure transparent management.[38]
Second, introduce regulations on digital asset and blockchain protection.
Drawing on Capitol Records v. ReDigi (2018), Vietnam should add the concept of a “legal copy” to the IP Law and related regulations to allow the transfer of digital assets without violating copyright. In addition, integrating blockchain into the copyright registration system would help verify ownership and prevent disputes.
Third, regulate NFT-related disputes through smart contracts and specialized legislation.
Referring to Miramax v. Tarantino (2022), Vietnam should adopt rules requiring the integration of smart contracts into NFTs to specify the limits of rights (e.g., display rights only, no commercial reproduction). At the same time, a digital assets law should be developed, inspired by the U.S. NFT Licensing Clarification Act (2023), to mandate disclosure of the IP rights associated with NFTs. Following WIPO’s recommendations, Vietnam should also participate in the WIPO Blockchain Taskforce to align with international standards and provide training for businesses on the legal risks of NFT issuance.
3.4. New developments in financial, securities, banking and credit law in the United States during the Fourth Industrial Revolution and recommendations for Viet Nam
3.4.1. New developments
The rapid development of technologies such as fintech (financial technology), blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI) and digital assets in the Fourth Industrial Revolution has produced a global breakthrough in the digitization and automation of the financial system. However, the rise of these new technologies has also created a host of legal gaps, thereby necessitating the prompt establishment of new regulatory frameworks. In the United States, agencies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Reserve (the Fed) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) have been coordinating closely to regulate digital assets and online transactions, with the aim of protecting investors and maintaining transparency and stability in the financial system.
In particular, Bitcoin and Ethereum — two cryptocurrencies with very large values and global recognition — clearly illustrate the transformation in current financial transactions. However, because of their decentralized nature and lack of state control, cryptocurrencies have raised concerns related to money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorist financing. To address these issues, the U.S. Government has expanded the existing legal framework. In 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance classifying cryptocurrency exchanges and virtual asset service providers as “Money Services Businesses (MSBs)”, obliging them to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). This includes maintaining transaction records, reporting suspicious activities and performing customer identification measures. At the same time, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA or ALM Act) extended the scope of the BSA to cover all transactions in digital assets, thereby strengthening market oversight and user protection.In particular, Bitcoin and Ethereum — two cryptocurrencies with very large values and global recognition — clearly illustrate the transformation in current financial transactions. However, because of their decentralized nature and lack of state control, cryptocurrencies have raised concerns related to money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorist financing. To address these issues, the U.S. Government has expanded the existing legal framework. In 2013, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance classifying cryptocurrency exchanges and virtual asset service providers as “Money Services Businesses (MSBs)”, obliging them to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). This includes maintaining transaction records, reporting suspicious activities and performing customer identification measures. At the same time, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA or ALM Act) extended the scope of the BSA to cover all transactions in digital assets, thereby strengthening market oversight and user protection.
Alongside these legislative amendments and supplements, supervision by agencies such as FinCEN and the SEC plays an important role in mitigating risks associated with digital finance. The case SEC v. Ripple Labs Inc. (2020) is a clear example. The SEC alleged that Ripple Labs and two of its executives violated federal securities laws by issuing and distributing the token XRP without registering it as a security. The SEC argued that XRP constituted a security under the “Howey test” established by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Howey test, a transaction is a security if it satisfies four elements: (1) there is an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profits, and (4) the profits primarily result from the efforts of others. Ripple, conversely, contended that XRP is not a security but rather a decentralized digital asset and argued that the SEC had not provided clear regulatory guidance for cryptocurrencies. On July 13, 2023, the federal court for the Southern District of New York ruled that XRP is not a security when sold on the secondary market (for example, on cryptocurrency exchanges), but is a security when sold directly to institutional investors. This decision was seen as a significant victory for Ripple, while also affirming the SEC’s authority to regulate certain digital asset transactions. The litigation has not concluded and may continue on appeal, but the Southern District’s ruling established important legal principles favorable to Ripple, and at the same time set precedents for SEC oversight of sales of digital assets to institutional investors.
Moreover, fintech platforms and online payment solutions such as Robinhood, PayPal and Square have developed rapidly, presenting major challenges to the traditional financial system. By leveraging digital environments, they offer trading, lending and investment services entirely online, changing how consumers access financial services. Robinhood — a trading platform notable for its “zero-commission” philosophy — exemplifies this trend. During the GameStop episode (2021), Robinhood attracted a large number of retail investors who simultaneously purchased GameStop shares, causing a sharp price surge. Facing extreme volatility, Robinhood restricted trading in that stock, triggering substantial controversy about the rights of retail investors and the role of the platform. The incident led to congressional hearings and heightened SEC supervision of fintech platforms to ensure transparency and fairness in the digital financial market. At the same time, the OCC implemented a Fintech Charter in 2016 to create a regulatory framework allowing fintech firms to operate as national banks. The Fintech Charter reduces the need for firms to obtain separate state licenses, exempts them from deposit-taking requirements in some respects, and obliges them to comply with risk management and consumer protection rules. However, this initiative sparked controversy among traditional banks and state regulators concerned about fairness and consumer protection. After initial legal pushback, the program continued to expand from 2021 and has been regarded as a measure to foster innovation in digital finance.
3.4.2. Recommendations for Viet Nam
From the developments described above, to build and complete regulatory provisions, manage cryptocurrencies and digital finance effectively, and promote innovation, Viet Nam can draw on several aspects of the United States’ experience:
First, Viet Nam needs to urgently build and complete the legal framework for cryptocurrencies and digital assets similar to how the United States expanded regulation through instruments such as the BSA and the AMLA. Recognize and regulate cryptocurrencies and digital assets by law; require exchanges to register, implement customer identification (KYC), retain transaction records and report suspicious transactions. This will ensure transaction transparency and help prevent illicit activities such as money laundering and fraud.
Second, Viet Nam should strengthen oversight of fintech activities and digital financial transactions by establishing a dedicated supervisory body or by enhancing the authority of the State Bank of Viet Nam (SBV) and the State Securities Commission (SSC). Drawing lessons from SEC v. Ripple Labs Inc., Viet Nam may adopt criteria comparable to the Howey test to classify digital assets and enable regulators to exercise closer supervision. This helps reduce legal risk and close regulatory gaps.
Third, Viet Nam should develop a special licensing mechanism for fintech companies, similar to the Fintech Charter in the United States. Such a policy would allow fintech firms to operate legally without being subject to the full complexity of traditional banking regulations, while still ensuring risk management and consumer protection.
Fourth, Viet Nam must increase transparency and data security in financial markets by promoting the use of technologies such as blockchain to reduce fraud and data manipulation. Viet Nam can learn from U.S. experience in requiring financial institutions to comply with legal standards on personal data protection and anti-market manipulation to protect investors, particularly retail investors.
Fifth, the GameStop–Robinhood episode in the United States demonstrated the need for rules protecting the rights of individual investors against the dominance of trading platforms. Viet Nam should promulgate similar regulations to limit the risk of market manipulation by digital trading platforms and to safeguard retail investors’ interests.
3.5. New developments in U.S. tax law in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and recommendations for Viet Nam
3.5.1. New developments
The development of cryptocurrency and digital assets in the Fourth Industrial Revolution has compelled U.S. lawmakers to amend legal provisions in order to effectively regulate digital asset transactions and ensure tax obligations of relevant entities. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued specific guidance to bring cryptocurrency into the tax management system.
Under IRS regulations, cryptocurrency is considered a type of property rather than currency, meaning that the purchase, sale, or exchange of cryptocurrency is subject to capital gains or losses depending on the asset’s appreciation at the time of the transaction (Notice 2014-21). This rule is similar to the taxation of stocks or real estate. For example, if an individual buys Bitcoin at a price of USD 10,000 and sells it at USD 15,000, the USD 5,000 profit will be treated as taxable income. However, the rapid growth of the cryptocurrency market revealed that many investors were not complying with their tax obligations. In 2016, based on Notice 2014-21, the IRS filed a lawsuit against Coinbase (one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to compel the exchange to provide information on users who had conducted large transactions in order to determine whether those users had fulfilled their tax obligations. Coinbase opposed this request, but in 2017 the Northern District Court of California ruled that Coinbase must provide information on approximately 14,000 user accounts with transactions exceeding USD 20,000 from 2013 to 2015 to the IRS. This case affirmed the IRS’s authority to request user information from cryptocurrency exchanges to collect taxpayer data, combat tax evasion, and revealed legal gaps in U.S. oversight of the cryptocurrency market. On this basis, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, signed by President Joe Biden in November 2021, requires cryptocurrency exchanges to report detailed user transaction information to the IRS on Form 1099-B, similar to brokerage firms, to achieve comprehensive and timely management and to eliminate the previous inefficiencies of collecting data through individual subpoenas and court orders.
During 2023–2024, the IRS has continued to classify cryptocurrency as taxable property, applying capital gains or ordinary income tax depending on the type of transaction. Notably, the IRS expanded the definition of “broker” to include cryptocurrency exchanges, DeFi platforms and related intermediaries, requiring these entities to report detailed customer transactions to the tax authorities starting in 2025. The 2023 tax return form (Form 1040) also adds a question on digital assets, requiring taxpayers to disclose any cryptocurrency-related transactions. These updates reflect the IRS’s efforts to enhance oversight, increase transparency, and broaden the tax administration of cryptocurrency and digital asset transactions in the United States.
Significantly, the growth of the digital economy has promoted cooperation between the IRS and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to establish new international tax principles. A key initiative is Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0, which includes two important pillars agreed upon by more than 135 OECD member countries and territories:
(1)Pillar One changes the principle of taxation by taxing profits based on the place of business activity rather than the place of company registration. This ensures that multinational companies, especially in the digital sector such as Amazon and Google, pay a fair share of taxes in the countries where profits are generated. This pillar requires reallocating a portion of residual profits to the countries where products or services are consumed. (2)Pillar Two establishes a global minimum tax, requiring multinational corporations with annual revenues of EUR 750 million or more to be subject to a minimum tax rate of 15%. This provision aims to prevent base erosion by deterring companies from shifting profits to tax havens to reduce their tax burdens.
These measures help prevent tax revenue losses, promote fair competition among businesses, and enhance financial resources for sustainable economic development in the United States. Moreover, proactive participation in and shaping of international tax principles strengthen the United States’ global leadership in digital economy governance.
3.5.2. Recommendations for Viet Nam
From the U.S. developments outlined above, to improve tax law in the context of the rapid growth of the digital economy, cryptocurrency, and digital assets, Viet Nam should consider the following:
First, Viet Nam should urgently improve the legal framework to effectively regulate the cryptocurrency and digital asset markets. Drawing on U.S. experience with IRS Notice 2014-21, Viet Nam may consider classifying cryptocurrency as “property” rather than merely currency. This would provide a legal basis to manage cryptocurrency transactions and impose taxes on gains or losses from such transactions, similar to capital gains tax on stocks or real estate. Such a rule would fill current legal gaps and ensure transparent and efficient tax collection from individuals and organizations investing in cryptocurrency.
Second, Viet Nam needs to enhance its capacity to monitor and collect data on cryptocurrency transactions. As demonstrated by the IRS’s lawsuit against Coinbase, Viet Nam could issue regulations requiring domestic cryptocurrency exchanges to provide detailed account and transaction information to the tax authorities. Global exchanges that Vietnamese users access could also be required to provide data under international agreements. Implementing automatic tax reporting (similar to Form 1099-B in the U.S.) would help the tax authority manage cryptocurrency transactions more effectively and reduce the risk of tax evasion or opaque trading.
Third, Viet Nam should actively participate in and learn from international initiatives such as OECD’s BEPS 2.0, particularly regarding the taxation of multinational companies in the digital economy. Pillar One could provide a mechanism for Viet Nam to fairly tax multinational corporations generating significant revenue from Vietnamese consumers (such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon) even if they have no physical presence in Viet Nam. Pillar Two, with its global minimum tax rate of 15%, is also a valuable reference to prevent companies from using Viet Nam as a base for profit shifting to evade taxes.
Fourth, Viet Nam should strengthen international cooperation in managing cryptocurrency, digital assets, and cross-border taxation. Viet Nam could engage more deeply in international cooperation mechanisms such as the OECD and financial information-sharing frameworks (such as the Common Reporting Standard – CRS and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act – FATCA). Such cooperation will ensure transparent information flows between countries and support Viet Nam in addressing cross-border tax evasion.
4. Conclusion
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) brings profound changes to the global economy, posing major challenges for legal systems. The changes in U.S. economic law—particularly in the areas of e-commerce, consumer protection, competition law, intellectual property, finance, and taxation—reflect a proactive approach to adapting to new economic models. New regulations on personal data protection, Big Tech management, and the integration of emerging technologies such as blockchain and digital currencies have enabled the United States to both control risks and foster innovation, thereby driving strong economic growth.
For Vietnam, the context of international integration and the powerful development of Industry 4.0 requires a legal system that is flexible, modern, and forward-looking. Drawing on U.S. experience while taking into account domestic realities can provide important directions for amending and supplementing legal regulations. Vietnam needs to focus on consumer protection, promoting fair competition, strengthening the management of digital assets, and improving tax policies, thereby building a sustainable, transparent, and equitable economy. Timely legal reforms will not only help Vietnam effectively adapt to challenges but also create the conditions for the nation to enter a new era of growth, in line with the vision set forth by the Communist Party of Vietnam for national development and implementation.
1. International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database: Gross Domestic Product (GDP), October 2010, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
2. National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012: Research and Development, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/ last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
3. Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2010, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21670 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
4. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Intellectual Property Indicators 2010, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/941/wipo_pub_941_2010.pdf (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
5. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Investment Report 2010, https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2010_en.pdf (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
6. U.S. Congress, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Public Law, https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ343/PLAW-110publ343.htm (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
7. U.S. Congress, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law, https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
8. U.S. Congress, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000, https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/761 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
9. Justia, Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/150/585/2468233/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
10. Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Protection, available at https://www.ftc.gov/consumer-protection (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
11. Justia, FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, No. 15-1009 (2d Cir. 2016), available athttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/15-1009/15-1009-2016-09-23.html (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
12. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999), https://www.uniformlaws.org (last visited Apr. 10, 2022).
13. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., No. 12-56628, 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014), available at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/18/12-56628.pdf (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
14. Federal Trade Commission, The CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business (2003), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
15. Xia Liu & Hong Zhao, Consumer Privacy Risks and Privacy Protection in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 13 J. Sys. Sci. & Info. 187 (2025), https://doi.org/10.12012/JSSI-2023-0050.
16. AB-375, Privacy: Personal Information: Businesses, California State Legislature (2018), available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
17. David Shepardson, Facebook to pay record $5 billion U.S. fine over privacy; faces antitrust probem, Thomson Reuters, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/facebook-to-pay-record-5-billion-us-fine-over-privacy-faces-antitrust-probe-idUSKCN1UJ1L9/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
18. Ihtesham Makhdoom, Inayatullah Zhou, Mehdi Abolhasan, Jason Lipman & Wei Ni, PrivySharing: A Blockchain-Based Framework for Privacy-Preserving and Secure Data Sharing in Smart Cities, Computers & Security (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSE.2019.101653
16. Nguyen Van Thai, Electronic Transactions: “Closing Orders” on Zalo, Facebook… Have Legal Effect? (2024), Phap Luat Ho Chi Minh City Newspaper, https://plo.vn/giao-dich-dien-tu-chot-don-tren-zalo-facebook-co-gia-tri-phap-ly-post804344.html (accessed Aug. 18, 2024).
20.Government, Decree No. 13/2023/Decree-Government on Personal Data Protection (2023), Law Library, accessed at https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Cong-nghe-thong-tin/Nghi-dinh-13-2023-ND-CP-bao-ve-du-lieu-ca-nhan-465185.aspx (accessed February 26, 2025).
21. Pınar Çağlayan Aksoy, Smart Contracts: To Regulate or Not? Global Perspectives, Law and Financial Markets Review 212, 212–41 (2022).
22. Katherine Brand, Christopher Garmon & Tyler Rosenbaum, In the Shadow of Antitrust Enforcement: Price Effects of Hospital Mergers from 2009 to 2016, 66 J.L. & ECON. 639 (2023).
23. United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 20, 2020), available athttps://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1378036/dl?inline (last visited Feb. 26, 2025).
24. Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:2020cv03590, Doc. 384 (D.D.C. 2024), available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2020cv03590/224921/384/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2025).
25. Sen. Amy Klobuchar & Sen. Chuck Grassley, American Innovation and Choice Online Act, H.R. 3780, 117th Cong. (2021), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3780 (last visited Feb. 27, 2025).
26. Bloomberg Law, Landmark U.S. Antitrust Bill for Big Tech Stalls in Congress (Jan. 2024), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/landmark-u-s-antitrust-bill-for-big-tech-stalls-in-congress
27. Robert W. Crandall & Thomas W. Hazlett, Antitrust in the Information Economy: Digital Platform Mergers, 65 J.L. & ECON. S499 (2022).
28. European Union Blockchain Observatory and Forum, Blockchain and the Law: Assessing the Legal and Regulatory Framework (2022), available at https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/.
29. Thaler v. Hhfeld, No. 1:20-cv-903, 2021 WL 393700 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2021), https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/21-2347
30. The Evolving Landscape of IP Law in the Age of AI, ABC Legal Blog (Feb. 15, 2023), http://www.abclegal.com/blog/the-evolving-landscape-of-ip-law-in-the-age-of-ai.
31. WIPO, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy (2020), https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4516.
32. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205).
33. Capitol Recs., LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2019),https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html
34. Roc-A-Fella Recs., Inc. v. Damon Dash, No. 1:21-cv-05411 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2021cv05411/562168/86/
35. Miramax, LLC v. Quentin Tarantino, No. 2:22-cv-08979 (C.D. Cal. 2022), https://grr.com/publications/the-nft-wars-ft-came-the-nfts-then-came-the-lawsuits-jay-z-lil-yachty-miramax-nike-and-hermes-file-nft-related-infringement-lawsuits/
36. NFT Licensing Clarification Act (Cal. 2023) (proposed) , https://www.lawoftheledger.com/2024/10/articles/nfts/new-california-law-targets-sellers-of-digital-goods-applicability-to-nfts-is-uncertain/
37. World Intellectual Prop. Org. [WIPO], NFTs and Intellectual Property: Considerations for Creators and Platforms 14 (2023), https://www.wipo.int/nft-guide
38. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), EUIPO Authentication Blockchain Infrastructure Enters a Promotion Phase, EUIPO, https://www.euipo.europa.eu/sv/news/observatory/euipo-authentication-blockchain-infrastructure-enters-a-promotion-phase (last visited Mar. 24, 2025).
39. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Guidance on Virtual Currencies and Money Services Businesses, FIN-2013-G001 (Mar. 18, 2013).
40. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-283, §§ 6101-6110, 134 Stat. 3388 (2021), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47255.
41. The Howey Test: Is Your Crypto Token a Security?, Gordon Law Group (last visited Oct. 12, 2023), https://gordonlaw.com/learn/howey-test-is-your-token-security/.
42. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-10832, Document 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv10832/551082/103/.
43. Jody Godoy, U.S. Judge Rejects SEC Bid to Appeal Ripple Labs Crypto Case, REUTERS (Oct. 3, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rejects-sec-bid-appeal-ripple-labs-crypto-case-2023-10-03/
44. Game Stopped? Who Wins and Loses When Short Sellers, Social Media, and Retail Investors Collide: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Financial Services, 117th Cong. (2021),https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/112590
44. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Exploring Special Purpose National Bank Charters for FinTech Companies (Dec. 2016), https://www.icba.org/our-positions-a-z/previous/fintech-charter
45. Notice 2014-21, I.R.S., 2014, available at https://www..gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions.
46. Coinbase, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 17-cv-01431-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/courtdecisions/summary/coinbase-v-.
47. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), available at https://www.congress.gov.
48. Internal Revenue Serv., Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions (2024), https://www..gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/virtual-currencies
49. OECD, Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), OECD (2023), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/global-minimum-tax/global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two.html.
50. KPMG, BEPS 2.0: Pillar One and Pillar Two, KPMG (2023), https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/risk-and-regulation/beps-2-0-pillar-one-and-pillar-two.html.
51. Tax Policy Center, What are OECD Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 international taxation reforms, Tax Policy Center (2023), https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-oecd-pillar-1-and-pillar-2-international-taxation-reforms.
* TS. Nguyễn Thành Luân - Tổng biên tập Tạp chí Khoa học Đại Nam
Email: nguyenthanhluan@dainam.edu.vn; thanhluanbdbp@gmail.com
[1] International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database: Gross Domestic Product (GDP), October 2010, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[2] National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012: Research and Development, https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[3] Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2010, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/21670 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[4] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Intellectual Property Indicators 2010, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/941/wipo_pub_941_2010.pdf (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[5] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Investment Report 2010, https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2010_en.pdf (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[6] U.S. Congress, Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Public Law, https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ343/PLAW-110publ343.htm (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[7] U.S. Congress, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law, https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[8]U.S. Congress, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000, https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/761 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[9] Justia, Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/150/585/2468233/(last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[10] Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Protection, available at https://www.ftc.gov/consumer-protection (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[11] Justia, FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, No. 15-1009 (2d Cir. 2016), available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/15-1009/15-1009-2016-09-23.html (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[12] Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999), https://www.uniformlaws.org (last visited Apr. 10, 2022).
[13] Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., No. 12-56628, 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014), available at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/18/12-56628.pdf (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[14] Federal Trade Commission, The CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business (2003), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[15] Xia Liu & Hong Zhao, Consumer Privacy Risks and Privacy Protection in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 13 J. Sys. Sci. & Info. 187 (2025), https://doi.org/10.12012/JSSI-2023-0050.
[16]AB-375, Privacy: Personal Information: Businesses, California State Legislature (2018), available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[17] David Shepardson, Facebook to pay record $5 billion U.S. fine over privacy; faces antitrust probem, Thomson Reuters, available athttps://www.reuters.com/article/technology/facebook-to-pay-record-5-billion-us-fine-over-privacy-faces-antitrust-probe-idUSKCN1UJ1L9/ (last visited Feb. 25, 2025).
[18] Ihtesham Makhdoom, Inayatullah Zhou, Mehdi Abolhasan, Jason Lipman & Wei Ni, PrivySharing: A Blockchain-Based Framework for Privacy-Preserving and Secure Data Sharing in Smart Cities, Computers & Security (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSE.2019.101653
[19] Nguyễn Văn Thái, Giao dịch điện tử: 'Chốt đơn' trên zalo, facebook... có giá trị pháp lý? (2024), Báo Pháp luật thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, truy cập tại https://plo.vn/giao-dich-dien-tu-chot-don-tren-zalo-facebook-co-gia-tri-phap-ly-post804344.html (truy cập ngày 18/08/2024).
[20] Government, Decree No. 13/2023/Decree-Government on Personal Data Protection (2023), Law Library, available at https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Cong-nghe-thong-tin/Nghi-dinh-13-2023-ND-CP-bao-ve-du-lieu-ca-nhan-465185.aspx (accessed February 26, 2025).
[21] Pınar Çağlayan Aksoy, Smart Contracts: To Regulate or Not? Global Perspectives, Law and Financial Markets Review 212, 212–41 (2022).
[22] Katherine Brand, Christopher Garmon & Tyler Rosenbaum, In the Shadow of Antitrust Enforcement: Price Effects of Hospital Mergers from 2009 to 2016, 66 J.L. & ECON. 639 (2023).
[23] United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 20, 2020), available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1378036/dl?inline (last visited Feb. 26, 2025).
[24] Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:2020cv03590, Doc. 384 (D.D.C. 2024), available at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2020cv03590/224921/384/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2025).
[25] Sen. Amy Klobuchar & Sen. Chuck Grassley, American Innovation and Choice Online Act, H.R. 3780, 117th Cong. (2021), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3780 (last visited Feb. 27, 2025).
[26] Bloomberg Law, Landmark U.S. Antitrust Bill for Big Tech Stalls in Congress (Jan. 2024), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/landmark-u-s-antitrust-bill-for-big-tech-stalls-in-congress
[27] Robert W. Crandall & Thomas W. Hazlett, Antitrust in the Information Economy: Digital Platform Mergers, 65 J.L. & ECON. S499 (2022).
[28] European Union Blockchain Observatory and Forum, Blockchain and the Law: Assessing the Legal and Regulatory Framework (2022), available at https://www.eublockchainforum.eu/.
[29] Thaler v. Hhfeld, No. 1:20-cv-903, 2021 WL 393700 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2021), https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/21-2347
[30] The Evolving Landscape of IP Law in the Age of AI, ABC Legal Blog (Feb. 15, 2023), http://www.abclegal.com/blog/the-evolving-landscape-of-ip-law-in-the-age-of-ai.
[31] WIPO, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy (2020), https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4516.
[32] Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201–1205).
[33] Capitol Recs., LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2019), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html
[34] Roc-A-Fella Recs., Inc. v. Damon Dash, No. 1:21-cv-05411 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2021cv05411/562168/86/
[35] Miramax, LLC v. Quentin Tarantino, No. 2:22-cv-08979 (C.D. Cal. 2022), https://grr.com/publications/the-nft-wars-ft-came-the-nfts-then-came-the-lawsuits-jay-z-lil-yachty-miramax-nike-and-hermes-file-nft-related-infringement-lawsuits/
[36] NFT Licensing Clarification Act (Cal. 2023) (proposed) , https://www.lawoftheledger.com/2024/10/articles/nfts/new-california-law-targets-sellers-of-digital-goods-applicability-to-nfts-is-uncertain/
[37] World Intellectual Prop. Org. [WIPO], NFTs and Intellectual Property: Considerations for Creators and Platforms 14 (2023), https://www.wipo.int/nft-guide
[38] European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), EUIPO Authentication Blockchain Infrastructure Enters a Promotion Phase, EUIPO, https://www.euipo.europa.eu/sv/news/observatory/euipo-authentication-blockchain-infrastructure-enters-a-promotion-phase (last visited Mar. 24, 2025).
[39] Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Guidance on Virtual Currencies and Money Services Businesses, FIN-2013-G001 (Mar. 18, 2013).
[40] Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-283, §§ 6101-6110, 134 Stat. 3388 (2021), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47255.
[41] The Howey Test: Is Your Crypto Token a Security?, Gordon Law Group (last visited Oct. 12, 2023), https://gordonlaw.com/learn/howey-test-is-your-token-security/.
[42] Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-10832, Document 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv10832/551082/103/.
[43] Jody Godoy, U.S. Judge Rejects SEC Bid to Appeal Ripple Labs Crypto Case, REUTERS (Oct. 3, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rejects-sec-bid-appeal-ripple-labs-crypto-case-2023-10-03/
[44] Game Stopped? Who Wins and Loses When Short Sellers, Social Media, and Retail Investors Collide: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Financial Services, 117th Cong. (2021), https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/112590
[45] Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Exploring Special Purpose National Bank Charters for FinTech Companies (Dec. 2016),https://www.icba.org/our-positions-a-z/previous/fintech-charter
[46] Notice 2014-21, I.R.S., 2014, available at https://www..gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions.
[47] Coinbase, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 17-cv-01431-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/courtdecisions/summary/coinbase-v-.
[48] Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), available at https://www.congress.gov.
[49] Internal Revenue Serv., Frequently Asked Questions on Virtual Currency Transactions (2024), https://www..gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/virtual-currencies
[50] OECD, Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two), OECD (2023), https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/global-minimum-tax/global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two.html.
[51] KPMG, BEPS 2.0: Pillar One and Pillar Two, KPMG (2023), https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/risk-and-regulation/beps-2-0-pillar-one-and-pillar-two.html.
[52] Tax Policy Center, What are OECD Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 international taxation reforms, Tax Policy Center (2023), https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-oecd-pillar-1-and-pillar-2-international-taxation-reforms.
