1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Theoretical Foundations of the Right to Remain Offline. – 3.1. Defining the ‘Right to Remain Offline’. – 3.2. Relationship with Fundamental Rights. – 3.2.1. Autonomy and Freedom of Choice. – 3.2.2. Access to Public Services and Participation. – 3.2.3. Equality and Non-Discrimination. – 3.2.4. Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights. – 4. Vietnamese Policy, Law and Practice. – 4.1. Digital Transformation and the Emerging Legal Architecture. – 4.2. Implementation and Inclusion Challenges for Older People. – 5. The EU Legal Framework and Member State Implementation. - 5.1 Digital Strategy and Legal Norms at the EU Level. – 5.2. Implementation Realities in Member States. – 6. Comparative Analysis and Discussion. – 7. Conclusion and Recommendations. – 7.1. Key Findings. – 7.2. Consolidated Recommendations.
Background: The digital transformation is increasingly reshaping the delivery of public services and justice, yet ‘digital-by-default’ reforms can produce exclusion where access becomes contingent on mandatory online engagement. This article examines the emerging right to remain offline, understood as an individual’s freedom not to be compelled to use internet-based technologies to exercise rights or fulfil everyday obligations, and analyses its normative foundations in autonomy, equality, and non-discrimination, with a particular focus on older people and the risks of digital ageism. The study compares Vietnam’s rapid, state-driven digitisation with the European Union’s evolving standards on digital inclusion and ‘digital choice’.
Method: This article adopts a qualitative doctrinal and functional-comparative methodology. It combines doctrinal analysis of legal texts with a functional comparison of how Vietnam and the EU legal order address access to public services and justice under digital-by-default reforms. The study analyses legislation, policy instruments, and (where available) administrative guidance alongside relevant scholarship and institutional reports. Socio-legal insights were used only for desk-based contextualisation, drawing on existing literature and published evidence; no original empirical research (surveys or interviews) was conducted.
Results and Conclusions: The analysis finds that Vietnam’s legal architecture strongly enables electronic transactions and digital identification, yet provides no explicit entitlement to offline access. Mandatory verification of e-ID accounts even for ‘offline’ procedures and local ‘paperless’ pilots illustrates how digitalisation may translate into de facto compulsion, with older adults disproportionately struggling to use key platforms, raising risks of indirect discrimination and digital ageism. In the EU, policy instruments emphasise inclusion and freedom of choice, but binding EU law does not codify a justiciable offline right; protection, therefore, remains uneven and largely dependent on Member State implementation. A comparative discussion suggests that, despite different regulatory styles, both contexts face a common risk: the erosion of substantive equality and effective access to justice when offline options are not legally secured. The article concludes that safeguarding offline access should be treated as a core condition of rights-respecting digital governance and recommends: (1) enshrining offline access in law; (2) mandating multi-channel service delivery; (3) adopting digital inclusion impact assessments; and (4) countering digital ageism through inclusive service design, training, and assisted access mechanisms. It further clarifies the dual nature of the right to remain offline: as an autonomy-based freedom and as an enabling guarantee for the effective exercise of other rights.