Consumer and Platform Accountability: Increasing Scrutiny of Digital Intermediaries in Scam-Related Advertising

smartphone screen showing account verification alert

Consumer and Platform Accountability: Increasing Scrutiny of Digital Intermediaries in Scam-Related Advertising

Recent litigation involving a major online platform in connection with alleged scam-related advertising has drawn renewed attention to the role of digital intermediaries in protecting consumers from online fraud. While the dispute itself remains subject to judicial determination, it highlights broader policy and regulatory questions regarding the responsibilities of digital platforms that facilitate advertising and online commercial activities.

Although Thailand has not yet adopted a comprehensive platform accountability framework specifically addressing scam-related advertisements, the issue aligns with wider regulatory efforts to combat technology-enabled fraud, strengthen consumer protection, and enhance trust in the digital economy. As online scams continue to generate substantial consumer losses, digital platforms may face increasing expectations from regulators, policymakers, and the public to take a more proactive role in preventing harm.

Existing Legal Framework:

Consumer Protection Law

The Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) serves as Thailand’s principal legislation governing unfair and misleading advertising practices. The Act prohibits advertisements that are false, exaggerated, misleading, or otherwise likely to cause consumer misunderstanding.

Traditionally, enforcement efforts have focused on advertisers themselves. However, as digital advertising ecosystems become increasingly complex, questions have emerged regarding whether platform operators that facilitate the dissemination of advertisements should assume greater responsibility for preventing fraudulent or deceptive content from reaching consumers.

While the Act does not currently establish explicit platform liability for scam-related advertisements, its consumer protection objectives may influence future regulatory approaches to digital platform governance.

Technology Crime Prevention Framework

Thailand has significantly expanded its legal framework for combating online fraud through the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended.

The Emergency Decree reflects a broader policy shift toward preventive measures and imposes obligations on various stakeholders within the digital ecosystem to cooperate in addressing technology-related crimes. Although the current framework primarily focuses on financial institutions, telecommunications providers, and other relevant service providers, it demonstrates an increasing willingness by policymakers to require private-sector participants to implement measures aimed at reducing fraud risks.

This regulatory approach may provide insight into how future obligations for digital platforms could evolve.

Computer Crime Law

The Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, establishes legal mechanisms for addressing unlawful online activities and removing illegal content from computer systems.

Although the Act was not specifically designed to regulate online advertising, it forms part of the broader legal framework governing intermediary conduct and online content management. The Act illustrates Thailand’s recognition that service providers play an important role in preventing and addressing harmful online activities.

As digital risks continue to evolve, policymakers may look to existing intermediary-related principles when considering future platform governance measures.

Emerging Platform Accountability Trends:

Recent developments suggest that regulators are increasingly focused not only on the perpetrators of online scams but also on the systems and mechanisms that enable fraudulent advertisements to reach consumers.

Several themes are likely to influence future policy discussions.

Enhanced Advertiser Verification

One potential area of reform involves stronger verification requirements for advertisers.

Regulators may increasingly expect platforms to implement robust due diligence procedures before allowing advertisements to be published, particularly in high-risk sectors such as financial services, investments, health products, and online commerce.

Possible measures may include:

  • Verification of advertiser identity;
  • Verification of business registration status;
  • Confirmation of regulatory licenses where applicable; and
  • Risk-based screening of advertising accounts.

Such requirements could reduce opportunities for anonymous or fraudulent actors to exploit digital advertising systems.

Proactive Monitoring and Detection

Another emerging trend involves the expectation that platforms implement systems capable of identifying potentially fraudulent activities before consumer harm occurs.

This may include:

  • Automated monitoring of advertising content;
  • Detection of suspicious advertising patterns;
  • Escalation procedures for high-risk advertisements; and
  • Internal fraud-prevention mechanisms supported by technology and human review.

Although such obligations may increase compliance costs, regulators may increasingly view proactive monitoring as a necessary component of responsible platform governance.

Notice-and-Takedown Mechanisms

Future regulatory initiatives may place greater emphasis on the speed and effectiveness of platform responses to scam-related content.

Platforms may be expected to maintain clear procedures for:

  • Receiving consumer complaints;
  • Reviewing reports of fraudulent advertisements;
  • Removing harmful content within reasonable timeframes; and
  • Preserving evidence for law enforcement and regulatory investigations.

Effective notice-and-takedown systems are increasingly regarded as a key safeguard in digital marketplaces.

Transparency and Accountability Measures

Policymakers may also consider imposing enhanced transparency requirements on digital platforms.

Potential measures could include:

  • Disclosure of advertiser information;
  • Publication of platform enforcement policies;
  • Transparency reporting regarding fraudulent advertisements; and
  • Cooperation and reporting obligations involving regulatory authorities.

Such measures seek to improve accountability while strengthening consumer confidence in online transactions.

Potential Regulatory Developments:

At present, Thailand has not enacted legislation imposing comprehensive liability on digital platforms for scam-related advertisements. Nevertheless, several factors suggest that further regulatory developments remain possible.

First, technology-enabled fraud continues to be a significant public policy concern. Second, regulators increasingly favor preventive approaches that require cooperation from private-sector participants. Third, digital platforms occupy a central role in the dissemination of commercial information and consumer engagement.

As a result, future initiatives could emerge through:

  • Amendments to consumer protection legislations;
  • Sector-specific digital platform regulations;
  • Additional anti-fraud compliance requirements;
  • Regulatory guidelines issued by relevant authorities; or
  • Multi-agency cooperation frameworks addressing online fraud.

Businesses operating digital platforms should therefore closely monitor regulatory developments and assess whether existing governance frameworks remain sufficient in light of evolving expectations.

Implications for Platform Operators:

Even in the absence of immediate legislative reform, platform operators may benefit from reviewing their existing compliance and risk-management practices.

Areas for consideration include:

  • Advertiser onboarding procedures;
  • Fraud detection and monitoring capabilities;
  • Internal complaint management systems;
  • Content moderation policies;
  • Record retention practices; and
  • Cooperation protocols with regulators and law enforcement authorities.

Organizations that adopt robust governance measures at an early stage may be better positioned to manage regulatory risk and maintain consumer trust as expectations continue to evolve.

Key Takeaways:

  • Recent litigation involving a major online platform has intensified discussion regarding the role of digital intermediaries in preventing scam-related advertising.
  • Thailand currently does not impose comprehensive statutory liability on digital platforms for fraudulent advertisements, but regulatory expectations are evolving.
  • Existing laws, including the Consumer Protection Act, the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes, and the Computer Crime Act, demonstrate increasing policy emphasis on consumer protection and fraud prevention.
  • Future regulatory initiatives may focus on advertiser verification, proactive monitoring, notice-and-takedown procedures, and transparency obligations.

Digital platform operators should proactively assess their governance and compliance frameworks in anticipation of increasing regulatory scrutiny and consumer protection expectations.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

Posted in