Category: Legal Updates

on by

Accommodation Reform: Proposed Super License and Stronger Guest Protections

Background

Thailand’s tourism sector has changed considerably, with rising numbers of international visitors and the emergence of new forms of accommodation. The legal framework, however, has struggled to keep pace. Homestays, hostels, boutique hotels, tents, rafts, and tree houses do not always fit requirements designed for conventional hotels and permanent buildings, and operators of these businesses often find compliance difficult. Meanwhile, traditional hotels that also run restaurants, spas, and other facilities must navigate multiple separate licensing processes.

In response, the proposed Accommodation Act B.E. …. (the “Accommodation Act”) aims to replace the Hotel Act B.E. 2547 (2004) with a modern framework that better reflects the current accommodation landscape. The Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (the “Immigration Act”), which has been in force since 1979, is also the subject of proposed amendments.

This article updates our previous article on Thailand’s hotel and accommodation regulations, available here.

Current Status

  • Immigration Act: The House of Representatives approved the draft amendment on 30 September 2026. The draft regulates the residence notification of foreigners and converts certain administrative fines into criminal penalties. The House also endorsed committee observations that the law should be aligned with the hotel law (which the proposed Accommodation Act is intended to replace) and that persons who accommodate foreigners should be supervised.
  • Accommodation Act: The Cabinet approved the draft in principle on 29 September 2026.

A Tiered Approach Based on Size and Risk

The proposed Accommodation Act would divide accommodation establishments into three categories, each requiring notification, registration, or licensing according to size, characteristics, and risk:

  • Category 1 – Notification (operate after notifying the registrar): hotels with up to 8 rooms and up to 30 guests; temporary residential accommodation (houses or rooms) with up to 8 units.
  • Category 2 – Registration (register with the registrar before operating): hotels with more than 8 but not more than 40 rooms, or more than 30 but not more than 150 guests; temporary residential accommodation with more than 8 but not more than 40 units.
  • Category 3 – Licensing (license required before operating): hotels with more than 40 rooms or more than 150 guests; temporary residential accommodation with more than 40 units.

The Minister of Interior may prescribe further types, kinds, or formats of accommodation by ministerial regulation.

This structure gives operators good reason to examine their planned room capacity and operating model before investing in a new property or expanding an existing one. A business’s marketing label, whether “homestay,” “boutique hotel,” or otherwise, should not be assumed to determine its legal classification.

For smaller operators, the proposed Accommodation Act could offer a more practical route into the regulated market, although this will depend on the requirements attached to each category and how they are administered. Property owners should also distinguish between the prospect of reform and permission to operate today. In particular, anyone considering short-term residential rentals should review the final legislation and other applicable requirements before proceeding.

What Would the Super License Cover?

The “Super License” would serve as the principal business license for Category 3 establishments, reducing the number of separate licenses an operator must obtain. Applicants who state their intention at the time of application could seek associated approvals covering up to ten activities. Examples identified by the government include premises selling or storing food; health establishments such as spas; swimming pools; fitness facilities; entertainment venues; premises using liquefied petroleum gas; and the sale of alcohol and tobacco. The mechanism would still need to be aligned with the laws governing each activity.

Hotels and resorts offering several of these services could benefit from a more coordinated application process. For an operator planning a restaurant, spa, gym, and pool within one property, the key questions would be which approvals can be handled together and what supporting documents each authority requires.

However, the term “Super License” should not lead business operators to assume that every activity is automatically authorized. Construction schedules, hotel management agreements, and acquisition documents should continue to identify the approvals required for each service and who will be responsible for obtaining them.

Advertising Would Carry Greater Contractual Weight

Under the proposed Accommodation Act, the information an operator presents to prospective guests, including accommodation rates, booking terms, advertising, and promotional statements, would form part of the contract with the guest. As international arrivals continue to grow, the Act would strengthen consumer protection by giving guests rights to cancel and to receive a proportionate refund where the accommodation or related services do not match what was advertised. Specified unfair booking conditions would also be prohibited.

This warrants attention beyond a routine review of standard terms and conditions. A room advertised with a sea view, a pool that is closed, or a package promising unavailable services could each become a source of dispute. Operators should therefore:

  • ensure that their own websites and booking-platform listings describe the same offering;
  • communicate any changes to guests before arrival;
  • establish a workable process for handling complaints and deciding when a refund is appropriate; and
  • where bookings are made through intermediaries, set out in the commercial agreement who updates listings, informs guests, and processes refunds.

Introduction of an Electronic System

The proposed Accommodation Act also introduces an electronic system to oversee and regulate accommodation businesses. The system would facilitate guest registration and reporting, license applications, and other regulatory procedures, and would serve as the primary channel of communication between operators and the relevant authorities, making administrative processes more accessible and efficient.

What Operators Should Do Now

The final text and implementing rules will determine how far the reform changes day-to-day operations. Existing businesses should monitor how their current approvals would be treated, while investors should test their plans against the eventual classification and approval requirements.

In the meantime, operators may find it useful to review:

  • property descriptions and booking conditions;
  • readiness to adopt the electronic system;
  • associated business licenses; and
  • allocation of responsibilities under management contracts.

Overall, the proposed reform seeks to move away from a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach toward a framework that reflects the size, nature, and risk level of each accommodation business.

Key Takeaways

  • The proposal seeks to make accommodation regulation better suited to businesses of different sizes and formats.
  • The Super License could simplify associated approvals for Category 3 establishments, but its scope and conditions will be important.
  • Operators should monitor and ensure that advertising, booking terms, and services actually provided are consistent. They also need to monitor on its obligation regarding notifying of the foreigner who are under their supervision under the new legislations to be enacted.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Cabinet Approves Negotiation Framework and Acknowledges Composition of Delegation for CBD COP 17

Introduction

On 14 October 2026, the Thai Cabinet, as proposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (the “MNRE”), approved Thailand’s negotiation framework and acknowledged the composition of the Thai delegation for the following meetings (collectively, the “Meetings”):

  1. the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD COP 17”);
  2. the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (“CP-MOP 12”); and
  3. the 6th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol (“NP-MOP 6”).

The Meetings commenced on 19 October 2026 and are scheduled to conclude on 30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia.

Thailand’s participation aims to contribute to international decision-making on biodiversity and to apply the outcomes in developing national policies and measures suited to Thailand’s circumstances. It is also expected to strengthen Thailand’s role in international discussions and promote cooperation on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Background and Global Biodiversity Goals

On 29 January 2004, Thailand became a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (the “CBD”), which aims to conserve biodiversity, promote its sustainable use, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources.

To advance these objectives, the Parties to the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the “KM-GBF”) at the second part of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (“CBD COP 15 Part 2”) in December 2022. The KM-GBF serves as a global framework for biodiversity action. It establishes a 2030 Mission and targets to guide efforts towards its long-term goals for 2050:

  • 2030 Mission and Targets: To halt and reverse biodiversity loss and put nature on a path to recovery by 2030, supported by 23 targets (the “2030 Targets”) covering ecosystem conservation and restoration, species protection, pollution reduction, the sustainable use of biodiversity, fair and equitable benefit-sharing, and financial support.
  • 2050 Goals: Four long-term goals addressing (i) the conservation and restoration of biodiversity; (ii) the sustainable use of biodiversity; (iii) the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources; and (iv) the financial and other resources needed to implement the KM-GBF.

Key Focus of the Meetings

A key focus of the Meetings, particularly CBD COP 17, will be to review the implementation of the KM-GBF, assess collective progress towards the 2030 Targets and 2050 Goals, identify achievements and implementation challenges, and determine where further action is needed.

The Meetings will also consider measures to accelerate implementation, particularly through increased financial support, stronger international cooperation and enhanced national efforts to achieve global biodiversity goals.

Thailand’s Position and Participation

1. Thailand’s Negotiation Framework

The negotiation framework, prepared by the MNRE through the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (“ONEP”), is based on two key principles:

  • Multilateral cooperation: Support international cooperation and consensus-based decision-making to advance the objectives of the CBD, its related protocols and the KM-GBF, while safeguarding Thailand’s national interests.
  • Equity and national sovereignty: Promote sustainable development, respect countries’ sovereign rights over biological and genetic resources, and take into account the needs, priorities and circumstances of developing countries.

Thailand will also seek to advance key issues, namely biodiversity financing, nature restoration, fair and equitable benefit-sharing from digital sequence information on genetic resources, local community participation, and the integration of biodiversity conservation into relevant sectors.

2. Composition of the Thai Delegation

The Thai delegation will be led by the Permanent Secretary of the MNRE and will comprise representatives of the following 10 government agencies:

  • Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning;
  • Department of Marine and Coastal Resources;
  • Department of Water Resources;
  • Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation;
  • Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
  • Department of Fisheries;
  • Office of the National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council;
  • Thailand Science Research and Innovation;
  • National Science and Technology Development Agency; and
  • Biodiversity-Based Economy Development Office (Public Organization).

Key Takeaways

  • A key focus of the Meetings, particularly CBD COP 17, will be to review the implementation of the KM-GBF and assess collective progress towards the 2030 Targets and 2050 Goals.
  • Thailand will emphasize multilateral cooperation, sustainable development, equity, and national sovereignty over biological and genetic resources, while advancing key issues such as biodiversity financing and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.
  • Decisions adopted at the Meetings may influence Thailand’s future biodiversity policies and measures and may, in some cases, require amendments to domestic laws. Further developments should therefore be monitored.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: WIPO GRATK Study Puts Genetic Resource Records in Focus

No new filing duty yet:

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has published WIPO GRATK, a study of the possible effects and benefits of Thailand joining the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. The publication signals that accession is under study; it does not mean Thailand has joined the treaty or that patent applicants must now make new disclosures.

The treaty would require a patent applicant whose invention is based on genetic resources to disclose their country of origin or, if that is unknown, their source. If the invention is based on associated traditional knowledge, the application would identify the Indigenous Peoples or local community that provided it, or the source of that knowledge. The treaty will enter into force after 15 eligible parties have ratified or acceded. It has not yet been done so.

The business issue is the paper trail:

For companies working with biological materials, the information needed for a patent application may be spread across research partners, suppliers, universities and other organizations. A company may know what material was used in an invention but lack a reliable record of where it came from or how it was obtained. That gap could complicate patent preparation if the treaty’s disclosure rules later apply.

Biotechnology, agriculture, pharmaceutical and food businesses should look at how they record the source of samples and related traditional knowledge. Research and material transfer agreements can help by requiring partners to provide provenance information and pass it along when materials change hands. The same records may help teams address permissions and benefit-sharing arrangements under applicable rules.

Thai companies seeking patents overseas should also check the requirements in each filing country. Foreign disclosure rules may affect an application even if Thailand has not joined WIPO GRATK. The DIP study is a timely reason to examine these practices, but businesses should read its recommendations before making changes to filing procedures or contract templates. Study itself creates no new obligation. DIP’s earlier consultation identified potential benefits in protecting genetic resources and associated local knowledge, improving patent transparency and supporting fair benefit sharing.

Key takeaways:

• DIP’s study concerns possible accession; it does not establish that Thailand has acceded.

• WIPO GRATK’s disclosure requirement will apply when Thailand joins WIPO GRATK.

• Businesses should check whether their research and supply arrangements preserve reliable records of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge.

• Thai applicants filing abroad should check the disclosure rules in each relevant jurisdiction.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

FDA: Building a Telepharmacy Platform—What Developers Need to Address

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has opened a regulated route for licensed modern pharmacies to provide telepharmacy services through recognized digital applications. For businesses developing healthcare platforms, the opportunity extends beyond connecting patients with pharmacists: it involves building a system that supports consultations, medicine supply, and delivery within the applicable regulatory framework. The FDA has established separate procedures for considering telepharmacy applications and for pharmacies seeking to provide the service. Platform developers should address both processes when designing their business model.

Platform Recognition and the Service Model:

FDA recognition of an application and authorization of a participating pharmacy serve different purposes. Recognition does not give the platform or every merchant using it a general right to sell medicines online. The service must operate through authorized pharmacies, with pharmacists providing professional services during pharmacy operating hours. Delivery must be traceable and comply with the prescribed service-area requirements. Developers therefore need to structure onboarding, consultation access, and fulfillment around the authorized pharmacy service.

Build Compliance into the Product;

A developer should assess the FDA’s application-review criteria before committing to the platform’s architecture. The FDA states that its consideration covers legal compliance, information security, and personal data protection. In practical terms, the product design should establish how participating pharmacies and pharmacists are verified, how patients reach the responsible pharmacist, and how consultation and delivery records can be retrieved when a problem arises. These design questions should be tested against the applicable criteria rather than left to individual pharmacies to resolve after launch.

Contracts, Data, and Commercial Responsibility:

The platform’s agreements should reflect who actually performs each part of the service. Matters to settle include responsibility for professional advice, medicine supply, pharmacist availability, delivery failures, complaints, refunds, and cooperation with regulatory inquiries. Patient data also requires particular attention: developers should map what information the platform collects, why it needs that information, who can access it, and what is disclosed to delivery providers. Decisions about consultation storage, analytics, and secondary uses of data should receive legal review before becoming standard product features. A platform that coordinates a transaction may still assume substantial obligations through its own conduct, contractual promises, and handling of patient information.

Key Takeaways:

For prospective platform operators, telepharmacy is a regulated healthcare service model that requires coordinated application recognition, pharmacy authorization, and professional involvement. The strongest starting point is to confirm the applicable FDA criteria, define the platform’s role, and translate that role into product controls and enforceable agreements. Regulatory review should precede launch and inform the core design, particularly where the platform manages consultations, patient records, or medicine delivery.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: New Facility Checks the Status of Corporate Trademark Owners

A new due-diligence link:

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has added a corporate-status check to its IP Search system. When a trademark record names a legal entity as owner, users can follow a link to the Department of Business Development’s DataWarehouse+ system to check the entity’s status, including whether it has been dissolved, liquidated, or struck off. The facility uses the DBD’s corporate records and is intended to help users identify risks when dealing with someone claiming rights in a company’s trademark.

What the facility means for transactions:

The link is an administrative service; it does not change the rules governing trademark ownership, assignment, or licensing. It gives buyers, licensees, business partners, and enforcement teams a useful first check when reviewing a trademark portfolio or a person’s authority to act for a corporate owner.

A dissolved company’s status should not, by itself, be treated as proof that its trademark rights have disappeared. Thai law provides that a company continues to exist to the extent necessary for liquidation, during which its affairs are settled and assets distributed. The trademark’s status therefore requires a closer review of the liquidation and asset-distribution records, any transfer documents, and the person’s authority to act.

Key takeaways:

  • Check the DBD status when a Thai trademark is registered to a company.
  • Treat the result as a due-diligence flag, then verify the company’s liquidation and asset records.
  • Before signing or enforcing, confirm the current owner and the other party’s authority to deal with the mark.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Revenue Department Launches Public Consultation on Draft Departure Tax Act: Key Proposed Principles and Implications

The Ministry of Finance, through the Revenue Department (the “RD”), the agency responsible for tax administration and collection, is proposing a revised framework for the collection of departure tax (the “Departure Tax”) under the Draft Departure Tax Act, B.E. [●] (the “Draft Act”).

From 30 September to 29 October 2026, the RD is conducting a public consultation (the “Public Consultation”) on 11 key proposed principles of the Draft Act (the “Proposed Principles”). As the Draft Act has not yet been released for public review, the Public Consultation seeks to inform affected persons and stakeholders of the Proposed Principles, their objectives and their potential impact, and to gather feedback for refining the Proposed Principles and preparing the Draft Act.

Background and Objectives

Thailand first introduced the Departure Tax under the Emergency Decree on Departure Tax, B.E. 2526 (1983) (the “Current Regime”), which took effect on 28 December 1983. Its purpose was to curb excessive outflows of foreign currency and safeguard Thailand’s balance of payments.

Under the Current Regime, the Departure Tax is structured as follows:

1. Persons subject to the Departure Tax

  • Thai nationals, including those born in Thailand or abroad and those who later acquired Thai nationality through naturalization.
  • Foreign nationals holding permanent residence in Thailand, as granted under the applicable immigration laws.

2. Departure Tax rates (maximum THB 5,000)

  • Departures by air: THB 1,000 per person per departure.
  • Departures by land or sea: THB 500 per person per departure.

In practice, however, the Departure Tax is currently exempt for all modes of departure. Departures by land or sea were exempted under Ministerial Regulation No. 4, B.E. 2529 (1986), effective 1 May 1986. Departures by air followed under Ministerial Regulation No. 6, B.E. 2534 (1991), effective 1 July 1991. Both exemptions were introduced in response to the economic conditions of the time and remain in force.

Key Principles of the Draft Act Under Public Consultation

To strengthen fiscal flexibility in responding to future emergencies, the Ministry of Finance has tasked the RD with reviewing the Departure Tax framework. The principal proposed change is to extend the Departure Tax to all persons departing Thailand, regardless of nationality, rather than limiting it to Thai nationals and foreign permanent residents as under the Current Regime.

The 11 Proposed Principles are summarized below:

  1. Persons subject to the Departure Tax: The Departure Tax would apply to all persons departing Thailand, regardless of nationality. The only exception would be carrier personnel, such as pilots and flight attendants, who travel without paying a fare while performing their duties.
  2. Departure Tax rate: The Draft Act would set a maximum rate of THB 5,000 per person per departure. The applicable rate would be prescribed by Ministerial Regulation.
  3. Exemptions: Categories of exempt persons would be prescribed by Ministerial Regulation.
  4. Initial phase: During the initial phase, the rate would be THB 1,000 per air departure, and no Departure Tax would be imposed on departures by land or sea. The Proposed Principles do not specify how long this phase would last after the Draft Act takes effect.
  5. Collection: The Departure Tax would be payable before departure. Where a ticket is purchased, the international passenger carrier or its ticketing agent would collect the tax together with the passenger fare.
  6. Travel without a ticket or fare: Where no ticket is purchased or issued, or no fare is paid or collected through a carrier or ticketing agent, travelers would pay the Departure Tax in accordance with rules and procedures prescribed by the Director-General of the RD.
  7. Commencement: The Draft Act would take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette.
  8. Non-application to previously purchased tickets: The Draft Act would not apply to tickets purchased before its effective date, even if the passenger departs after that date.
  9. Powers of competent officials: Competent officials would be empowered to assess and collect the Departure Tax, penalties and surcharges; to issue summonses and orders; and to search for or seize accounts, documents and other relevant evidence.
  10. Penalties and surcharges: A penalty of twice the amount of Departure Tax payable or required to be remitted would apply. In addition, a surcharge of 1.5% per month (or part thereof) would accrue on unpaid or unremitted Departure Tax, excluding penalties.
  11. Sanctions for non-compliance: The Draft Act would impose sanctions for tax evasion or attempted evasion involving false statements, false testimony, false evidence or other fraudulent means. Sanctions, including regulatory fines where applicable, would also apply to persons who obstruct or fail to cooperate with competent officials or who breach their statutory obligations.

Next Steps

After the Public Consultation closes, the RD will summarize the feedback received and publish a report on the results. The feedback will be used to refine the Proposed Principles, which will form the basis for preparing the Draft Act and proceeding to the subsequent legislative drafting process.

Key Takeaways

  • The proposed framework would apply to all persons departing Thailand, regardless of nationality, subject to prescribed exemptions.
  • The Draft Act would set an initial tax rate of THB 1,000 for air departures and no tax on land or sea departures. The duration of this initial phase has not been specified. The maximum tax rate will be in the amount of THB 5,000.
  • The Proposed Principles remain subject to the Public Consultation and may be revised in light of the feedback received before the Draft Act is finalized.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

PDPA: Research Consent, Lawful Bases and the Use of Personal Data in Research

The use of personal data in scientific and academic research presents legal challenges, particularly where research ethics requirements intersect with obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). On October 9, 2026, the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) and the Personal Data Protection Committee Office (PDPC Office) jointly presented guidance on personal data protection in research activities, highlighting the distinction between research ethics consent and consent under the PDPA, the identification of appropriate lawful bases for processing personal data, and measures to reduce the risk of identifying individuals from research datasets. Although the initiative does not introduce new legislation or amend existing PDPA requirements, it signals increasing regulatory attention to the handling of personal data throughout the research lifecycle.

Research Ethics Consent and Consent Under the PDPA:

One of the principal issues addressed is the distinction between consent obtained for research ethics purposes and consent required under the PDPA. Research ethics consent generally concerns a participant’s voluntary agreement to participate in a study after receiving sufficient information about its objectives, methodology, potential risks, and expected benefits. Consent under the PDPA, however, serves a different legal function and must satisfy statutory requirements where consent is relied upon as the lawful basis for processing personal data. Accordingly, obtaining informed consent through an institutional review board or research ethics committee does not automatically establish valid consent under the PDPA. Research institutions must independently assess whether the processing activities require PDPA consent or may be justified under another applicable lawful basis.

Lawful Bases for Processing Research Data:

The PDPA recognizes circumstances in which personal data may be processed for scientific, historical, or statistical research without relying exclusively on consent, subject to applicable statutory conditions and appropriate safeguards. In particular, Section 24(1) addresses certain research-related processing activities, while Section 26 establishes separate requirements for sensitive personal data, including health information, genetic data, and biometric data. These provisions should not be interpreted as providing a blanket exemption for research activities. Research institutions must assess the nature of the data, the purposes of processing, the applicable statutory conditions, and the safeguards necessary to protect data subjects. This assessment becomes particularly important in medical research, clinical trials, pharmaceutical development, and projects involving large-scale datasets or secondary uses of information originally collected for other purposes.

Anonymization, Pseudonymization and Research Publication:

Another important consideration is the risk of identifying individuals through research data, particularly when datasets are shared, combined, or published. Effective anonymization may place information outside the scope of the PDPA where individuals can no longer be identified, directly or indirectly, taking account of reasonably available means of identification. Pseudonymization, by contrast, generally reduces identification risks but does not necessarily remove information from the scope of personal data protection requirements. Research organizations should therefore adopt appropriate technical and organizational measures, including data minimization, access restrictions, separation of identifying information, and assessments of re-identification risks before disclosing research findings or making datasets available to third parties. Similar considerations arise when research data is used to train, test, or develop artificial intelligence systems.

Future Research Funding Requirements and Compliance Expectations:

The NRCT has also outlined plans to strengthen personal data protection requirements within its research funding framework. Preparatory measures are expected during fiscal year 2027, with a proposed requirement for principal investigators to complete personal data protection training as a condition for research funding applications beginning in fiscal year 2028. The NRCT has additionally indicated an intention to encourage the use of artificial intelligence tools to review research information before publication. These initiatives suggest that data protection compliance may increasingly become part of research governance and funding eligibility, rather than remaining solely a matter of institutional policy. However, the proposed training requirement should not yet be treated as an existing legal obligation or a finalized funding condition.

Implications for Research Institutions and Businesses:

Universities, hospitals, research institutes, pharmaceutical companies, and businesses engaged in research and development should review their existing procedures for collecting, using, sharing, retaining, and publishing personal data. Particular attention should be given to the relationship between research participation documents and PDPA privacy notices, the identification and documentation of lawful bases, the processing of sensitive personal data, and arrangements governing data sharing with research collaborators and technology providers. Where personal data is subsequently used for AI development or other secondary research purposes, organizations should assess whether the proposed processing is compatible with the original purposes and whether additional legal conditions or safeguards apply.

The guidance presented by the NRCT and the PDPC Office represents a practical compliance development rather than a change to the statutory framework. As the publicly reported initiative does not yet constitute a complete, formally issued regulatory guidance document, its contents should be distinguished from binding requirements under the PDPA and applicable subordinate legislation.

Key Takeaways:

  • Research ethics consent is not equivalent to PDPA consent: Research organizations must separately establish an appropriate lawful basis for processing personal data.
  • Research activities are not automatically exempt from the PDPA: Applicable statutory conditions and safeguards must be assessed, particularly when sensitive personal data is involved.
  • Anonymization and pseudonymization have different legal consequences: Organizations should evaluate re-identification risks before sharing or publishing research datasets.
  • Research funding requirements may become more closely linked to data protection compliance: The NRCT’s proposed training requirements warrant monitoring but should not be treated as finalized obligations.
  • Secondary research and AI development require careful legal assessment: Reusing research data for new purposes may raise additional questions concerning lawful bases, transparency, data minimization, and data subject rights.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand–Canada Free Trade Agreement (TCAFTA): Cabinet Approves Negotiating Framework

Introduction

Thailand’s Cabinet has approved the negotiating framework for the Thailand–Canada Free Trade Agreement (“TCAFTA”) and endorsed Thailand’s participation in the forthcoming negotiations with Canada. The Cabinet also acknowledged the TCAFTA reference paper and the composition of Thailand’s negotiating delegation. In addition, it authorized the Minister of Commerce, or an authorized representative, to launch the negotiations jointly with Canada through an announcement or joint statement.

Background

Thailand currently has 14 free trade agreements (“FTAs”) with 18 countries, covering approximately 60.9% of its total trade. As part of its strategy to strengthen economic stability and competitiveness, Thailand continues to expand its FTA network. In 2025, bilateral trade between Thailand and Canada reached approximately THB 128.9 billion, an increase of about THB 15.4 billion from 2024, with Thailand maintaining a substantial trade surplus. TCAFTA would be Thailand’s first FTA with a North American country.

Scope of the Negotiating Framework

The framework draws on those previously approved by the Cabinet for the ASEAN–Canada FTA and the Thailand–European Union FTA. The draft was discussed with public- and private-sector stakeholders and revised in light of comments from government agencies.

It covers 26 topics, including:

  • Trade in goods
  • Rules of origin
  • Intellectual property
  • Customs procedures and trade facilitation
  • Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
  • Trade in services
  • Digital trade
  • Investment

Domestic procedures are under way to enable the official launch of negotiations in October 2026.

Expected Impact

TCAFTA is expected to have an overall positive impact on Thailand’s trade in goods, trade in services and investment. It would also provide an opportunity to raise Thailand’s trade regulations and standards to a higher international level.

Key Takeaways

  • The Cabinet approved the TCAFTA negotiating framework, Thailand’s participation in the talks and the structure of its delegation.
  • The framework covers 26 topics, including trade in goods, rules of origin, intellectual property, services, digital trade and investment.
  • TCAFTA is expected to enhance Thailand’s competitiveness and benefit trade and investment, while supporting the upgrading of its trade rules.
  • Negotiations are expected to launch in October 2026, once domestic procedures are complete.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s DIP Consults Stakeholders on Strengthening IP Protection and Enforcement

On 8 September 2026, Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (“DIP”), Ministry of Commerce, convened a consultation meeting (the “Consultation”) with international and business representatives and Thai government agencies on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property (“IP”) rights in Thailand.

The Consultation was attended by more than 80 participants, including:

  • The Members of the European Association for Business and Commerce (EABC) IPR Working Group; Delegation of the European Union to Thailand; Embassy of the United States of America in Thailand; British Embassy Bangkok; US-ASEAN Business Council (USABC); American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand (AMCHAM); and British Chamber of Commerce Thailand (BCCT).
  • The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (“MDES”), Customs Department, Department of Special Investigation (“DSI”), Economic Crime Suppression Division (“ECD”) and National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).

The Consultation formed part of the Government’s efforts to align Thailand’s IP protection and enforcement more closely with international standards. It gave businesses, rights holders and other stakeholders a forum to raise practical issues directly with the DIP and other relevant agencies. The DIP will take the feedback into account in further developing Thailand’s IP system.

Key Issues Discussed

Participants discussed IP registration, use of technology to improve the registration process, and coordination between the DIP and other government agencies to improve IP enforcement, particularly in addressing IP infringement and promoting more integrated cooperation among relevant agencies. International and business representatives called for shorter processing times and more efficient registration procedures.

The DIP also provided updates on three areas:

  • IP registration: The DIP is using technology to modernize its registration system such as Trademark e-Filing and AI-Image Search and Trademark Checker to facilitate the registrars’ working processes.
  • IP enforcement: Enforcement has been strengthened in commercial areas, at storage facilities and at border checkpoints through inspections, seizures of infringing goods and coordinated enforcement actions by the DIP and relevant authorities, including the Customs Department, DSI and ECD. From January to August 2026, Thai authorities handled 672 IP infringement cases and seized 2,039,432 items infringing copyright rights, with estimated economic damages exceeding THB 875.9 million.
  • Online enforcement: The DIP continues to work with rights holders and e-commerce platforms under existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the protection of IP rights on the internet. To date, more than 39 parties have signed this MOU, including several leading e-commerce platforms such as Lazada, Shopee, TikTok Shop, NocNoc, Nex Gen Commerce and LINE Shopping. More than 1,700 infringing listings have been removed through the Notice and Takedown mechanism implemented under this MOU.  In addition to its cooperation with the private sector the DIP is also working with the MDES and DSI to improve measures for blocking websites involved in IP infringement.

Next Steps

The DIP will consider the comments and recommendations received as it develops Thailand’s IP system, with a focus on improving IP registration process and timeline, strengthening enforcement (including against online infringement) and enhancing inter-agency coordination.

Key Takeaways

  • The Consultation gave stakeholders a direct channel to raise practical IP issues with the relevant Thai authorities.
  • Registration efficiency, technology adoption and inter-agency coordination were the main topics.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP e-Exchange: A New Framework for Accessing and Using IP Data

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has launched DIP e-Exchange, a new platform designed to enable government agencies and private-sector organizations to connect with and exchange intellectual property (IP) information held by the DIP. The initiative goes beyond providing another online search facility. It establishes an application programming interface (API)-based infrastructure through which eligible organizations can potentially integrate official IP information into their own systems and workflows.

The DIP describes the platform as part of its development of an IP data infrastructure that allows information to be exchanged between organizations in a standardized and secure manner. The new system replaces the DIP’s previous API channel for existing participating organizations and is provided without charge. The DIP also emphasizes compliance with government data governance and information security requirements.

From IP Records to Usable Business Data:

The DIP e-Exchange currently provides APIs covering six categories of IP information: copyright, geographical indications, petty patents, design patents, invention patents, and trademarks. The DIP’s announcement indicates that the information available through the system includes, for example, granted or published patent information, trademark and rights-holder information, and information concerning copyright works and persons who have notified copyright information to the DIP.

This is significant because IP registry information has traditionally been approached primarily as information to be searched when a particular legal or commercial need arises. An API-based infrastructure offers a different model. Instead of requiring a user to conduct an individual search and manually incorporate the results into another process, an authorized organization’s system can potentially retrieve relevant information directly from the DIP and use that information within its own digital workflow.

The DIP has identified a broad range of potential applications. These include verifying the existence of IP rights in public- and private-sector transactions, supporting the development of higher-value products and services through IP, assisting IP valuation for SME financing, facilitating research and analysis, and enabling enforcement authorities to verify IP rights more efficiently.

Implications for IP Transactions and Financing:

The new infrastructure could be particularly relevant to transactions in which the existence, ownership, or status of IP rights needs to be verified. IP information is routinely relevant to mergers and acquisitions, investments, licensing, technology transfers, financing arrangements, enforcement actions, and IP due diligence. Where organizations regularly undertake these activities, direct access to official data may allow some verification processes to be incorporated into existing compliance, transaction, or portfolio-management systems.

The potential application to financing is particularly noteworthy. One practical challenge in IP-based financing is obtaining reliable information concerning the underlying asset. The DIP specifically identifies the use of IP information for IP valuation in connection with financial institutions’ lending to SMEs as one potential application of the platform.  Easier access to authoritative registry information could therefore contribute to the information infrastructure necessary for financial institutions and other stakeholders to assess IP assets.

However, data obtained from the DIP should not be regarded as a substitute for legal due diligence. Registry information is only one component of determining the legal and commercial position of an IP asset. Depending on the transaction, separate investigation may still be required regarding matters such as chain of title, licenses, assignments, security interests, contractual restrictions, pending disputes, actual use of trademarks, unregistered rights, and the validity or enforceability of particular rights. The legal significance of information retrieved through the system must therefore be distinguished from the efficiency with which that information can be obtained.

Information Security and Data Governance:

DIP e-Exchange is intended for legal entities in both the public and private sectors whose activities relate to IP and that maintain appropriate information security arrangements. Organizations seeking access are required to register and submit supporting documentation to the DIP.

The supporting documentation identified by the DIP includes a request for data connectivity, an MOU where applicable, the relevant service application form, and either evidence of ISO/IEC 27001 certification or the organization’s information security policies and practices.  The platform’s technical documentation also indicates that API access operates through an authorization token, illustrating that access is controlled rather than being an unrestricted bulk-data facility.

These requirements highlight an important distinction between making IP information available for individual public searches and permitting systematic access to government data through APIs. Once information can be retrieved and processed at scale, issues of cybersecurity, access control, permitted use, data retention, system integrity, and internal accountability become increasingly important.

Organizations considering connection to DIP e-Exchange should therefore approach implementation as both an IP-data project and a data-governance project. Appropriate internal controls may need to address who is authorized to access the system, the purposes for which information may be retrieved, how retrieved information is stored and incorporated into other databases, and how access and use are monitored.

Toward Interoperable IP Infrastructure:

The broader significance of DIP e-Exchange is the movement from digitization toward interoperability in IP administration.

Digitization allows applicants, rights holders, professionals, and members of the public to interact electronically with the DIP. Interoperability goes a step further: it enables official IP information to become part of the digital processes of other organizations. Instead of government data remaining within a standalone database that must be consulted separately, standardized APIs can potentially allow that data to interact with other systems.

This may create opportunities well beyond conventional IP searches. Businesses and service providers could potentially incorporate official IP information into portfolio-management and transaction systems; financial institutions could use relevant data as part of IP valuation and financing processes; researchers could conduct more systematic analysis; and enforcement agencies could verify rights more efficiently. The DIP itself has characterized IP information as capable of supporting public services, policy analysis, and the development of future digital services.

The practical value of DIP e-Exchange will ultimately depend on matters such as the scope and quality of the available data, the frequency with which it is updated, the conditions governing access and use, and the extent to which organizations integrate the APIs into their operational systems. Nevertheless, the platform represents an important change in how official IP information can be accessed and potentially used.

For businesses, financial institutions, technology companies, research organizations, IP professionals, and other organizations that regularly process IP information, the relevant question may increasingly shift from whether official IP information is available online to how authoritative IP data can be securely incorporated into the systems through which legal and commercial decisions are made.

Key Takeaways:

DIP e-Exchange introduces API-based access to official IP information, covering copyright, geographical indications, petty patents, design patents, invention patents, and trademarks.

The potential uses extend beyond conventional registry searches. The DIP identifies transaction verification, IP valuation and financing, research, enforcement, and development of digital services among the intended applications.

API access may facilitate the integration of IP information into organizational workflows, including due diligence, portfolio management, financing, and compliance processes.

Registry data does not replace legal due diligence. Ownership, contractual rights, chain of title, disputes, unregistered rights, and validity or enforceability issues may still require separate investigation.

Information security is a central feature of the framework. Organizations seeking access are expected to demonstrate appropriate information security standards, policies, or practices.

The initiative represents a broader transition toward interoperable IP infrastructure, in which government-held IP information can potentially become part of the digital systems used to make legal, financial, and commercial decisions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles