Category: Legal Updates

on by

OCPB Issues New Guidelines on Fair Advertising and Use of AI-Generated Content

Background: What is Happening in Thailand Now:

Thailand has taken a significant step toward regulating the use of artificial intelligence in commercial advertising. The Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has issued a formal notification under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) establishing specific guidelines for AI-generated advertising content.

The notification addresses emerging advertising practices where marketers increasingly use AI and image-editing software to create or enhance visuals—often to an idealized standard—to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB observed that such practices may cause consumers to misunderstand the essential characteristics, condition, quantity, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage.

Key trigger for regulation: The OCPB determined that when advertisements use images, videos, or other visual materials that have been created, enhanced, or modified through AI or computer programs, consumers may be misled about the actual product they will receive. The notification is already in effect with no grace period.

Why the Regulator Needs to Regulate:

The OCPB identified several risks justifying regulatory intervention:

· Consumer deception: AI can create flawless, exaggerated depictions that mislead consumers about the true characteristics, quality, quantity, or composition of products.

· Unfair competition: Advertisers using deceptive AI enhancements gain an unfair advantage over those that accurately portray their products.

· Vulnerable group protection: Children and adolescents are especially susceptible to unrealistic AI-generated images, which may encourage unsafe behavior—particularly for non-edible products resembling food items.

· Lack of transparency: Without mandatory disclosure, consumers cannot distinguish between real and AI-generated content, eroding trust in advertising.

The notification was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979), which has long prohibited advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services.

What the Regulation Is:

The OCPB notification applies to advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold, which may cause misunderstanding regarding condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects.

Three Key Requirements:

A. Prior Authorization

Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. This applies where existing laws already mandate pre-approval for certain advertising categories (e.g., health products, financial services).

B. Accurate Representation

Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos.

C. Mandatory AI Disclosure Labels

Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images. The OCPB has specified approved wording for these labels :

Approved Disclosure Label When to Use

“Real image or simulation edited using AI” Content showing real product/location with AI editing

“Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” Location-based content

“Photo from actual product or edited simulation” Product-focused content with AI enhancement

“Image created by AI” Fully AI-generated images

“Video created by AI” Fully AI-generated videos

Disclosure clarity requirement: Disclosures must be clearly visible, audible, or readable according to the type of advertising medium. A label buried in fine print or shown for only a fraction of a second does not meet this standard.

Separate Rule – Non-Edible Products Resembling Food Items

For non-edible products advertised in a manner that may cause them to resemble food items, businesses must additionally:

· Obtain prior authorization from the relevant regulatory authority when required by law

· Include clear, prominent Thai-language disclaimers that are easily visible, audible, or legible

· Exercise particular caution for communications targeting vulnerable groups (children, adolescents), avoiding portrayals that could encourage imitation, ingestion, or unsafe behavior

What Businesses Need to Do Now:

The notification is already in force. Businesses operating in Thailand must take immediate action :

Step 1: Audit Current Advertising Content

Review all active campaigns and identify any materials that use AI-generated or AI-edited images or videos. Determine which disclosure label applies to each piece of content.

Step 2: Verify Accuracy of Depictions

Ensure that every visual depiction of size, quantity, volume, composition, or characteristics matches the actual product. If discrepancies exist, correct the content or add appropriate disclosures.

Step 3: Add Mandatory Disclosures

For all AI-generated or AI-edited visual content, add one of the OCPB’s approved disclosure labels in a clearly visible position. The label must be readable on screen or in print, and audible if the medium is audio/video.

Step 4: Update Internal Workflows

Make AI disclosure a mandatory step in the creative approval process. Every piece of advertising content that uses AI should be reviewed for compliance before publication.

Step 5: Review Contracts with Agencies and Suppliers

If working with external marketing agencies, graphic designers, or content creators, ensure contracts require them to flag AI-generated content and apply appropriate disclosures. Establish clear compliance responsibility.

Step 6: Train Marketing Teams

Educate all personnel involved in creating or approving advertising materials on what counts as AI-generated or AI-edited content and what disclosures are required.

Step 7: Establish Ongoing Monitoring

Thailand’s AI regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly. Monitor updates from the OCPB and other relevant bodies—including the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES)—for new guidance.

Key Takeaways:

· Thailand’s OCPB notification on AI-generated advertising content is already in effect under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

· Mandatory disclosure labels with specific approved wording must appear on all AI-generated or AI-edited advertising images and videos.

· Accuracy requirement: Depictions of size, quantity, volume, composition, and characteristics must match the actual product.

· Prior authorization remains required for advertising categories already subject to pre-approval (health products, financial services, etc.).

· Separate rules apply to non-edible products resembling food items, requiring Thai-language disclaimers and special care for vulnerable groups.

· Businesses should immediately audit, correct, disclose, and train to ensure compliance and avoid enforcement risks including fines and removal orders .

· Thailand’s broader AI regulatory framework is still developing—companies should treat this as the beginning of an ongoing compliance journey .

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Proposed Amendments to Anti-Corruption Legislation to Align with OECD Standards

The Thai Government is advancing amendments to the Organic Act on Prevention and Suppression of Corruption, B.E. 2561 (2018) (OAAC), with the objective of strengthening the country’s framework for combating foreign bribery and aligning it more closely with the standards of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The proposed revisions primarily target Section 176 of the OAAC, which establishes the offense of bribing foreign public officials or officials of international organizations, along with associated corporate liability provisions.

These changes form part of Thailand’s broader strategy to meet OECD expectations in preparation for potential accession to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and formal membership assessment by 2030.

Key Proposed Amendments to the Foreign Bribery Offense:

The revisions seek to address gaps identified in the current regime and to achieve functional equivalence with OECD Anti-Bribery Convention requirements. Principal elements include:

•  Broadening the scope of prohibited conduct: The offense will explicitly cover bribery through intermediaries, advantages conferred on third parties, and inducements intended to cause or refrain from any official action, irrespective of whether such action falls within the official’s authorized duties. Limiting language, such as the requirement of intent “to delay” official action, will be removed.

•  Clarification of definitions: Key terms including “person”, “property or other benefit”, “foreign country”, “foreign public official”, and “international organization” will be refined or expanded for greater legal certainty.

•  Introduction of new offense: Conspiracy to commit foreign bribery will be established as a standalone criminal offense.

•  Penalties: Sanctions for natural persons will be aligned in severity with those applicable to the bribery of Thai public officials. Corporate fines will be recalibrated to reflect the gravity of the offense, with consideration given to supplementary administrative measures, such as license suspension or revocation.

Enhancements to Corporate Liability Regime

Significant attention is being paid to the liability of juristic persons:

•  Associated persons: Revised definitions will clarify the categories of individuals and entities whose actions may trigger corporate liability.

•  Defense: An additional compliance defense will require not only the existence of adequate internal controls but also their effective implementation, supervision, and enforcement.

•  Independent corporate liability: The amendments will confirm that a juristic person’s liability persists independently of any prosecution or conviction of the individual perpetrator and remains unaffected by corporate restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, or changes in legal form.

•  Statutes of limitation: Appropriate limitation periods for corporate offenses will be reviewed to ensure effective enforcement.

Practical Implications for Businesses:

These amendments, once enacted, will have material consequences for Thai and foreign companies operating in or through Thailand:

•  Heightened compliance expectations: Companies will need to review and, where necessary, strengthen anti-bribery policies, due diligence procedures, and internal controls, particularly in relation to intermediaries, third-party payments, and cross-border transactions.

•  Increased enforcement risk: A clearer and broader offense, combined with robust corporate liability provisions, will facilitate more effective investigations and prosecutions, elevating reputational and financial risks associated with foreign bribery.

•  Investment and trade benefits: Alignment with OECD standards is expected to enhance international credibility, improve access to foreign investment, and support smoother cross-border business dealings. It will also position Thai companies more favorably in jurisdictions that apply strict anti-bribery due diligence requirements.

Key Takeaways:

•  The proposed amendments to the OAAC aim to bring Thailand’s foreign bribery laws into closer alignment with OECD standards, supporting potential accession to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

•  Key changes include a significantly expanded foreign bribery offense, new conspiracy provisions, clarified definitions, and strengthened corporate liability rules.

•  Businesses should expect higher compliance standards, with particular focus on adequate and effectively enforced anti-bribery controls.

•  Successful implementation will enhance Thailand’s international reputation, reduce cross-border corruption risks, and support long-term economic competitiveness and foreign investment inflows.

Businesses are advised to monitor the legislative process closely and begin assessing their existing compliance programs in anticipation of these important reforms.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Notification of the Competent Officer on Exchange Control (No. 38) — Draft Amendment

Introduction

On 25 March 2026, the Competent Officer on Exchange Control issued the Draft Notification on the Criteria and Procedures for Foreign Exchange Transactions (No. 38) (the “Draft Notification”). The Draft Notification proposes amendments to the existing notification dated 31 March 2004 (as amended), with the principal objective of enhancing regulatory clarity and easing documentary requirements for certain foreign exchange (“FX”) transactions.

The proposed amendments primarily concern documentary requirements, the timing for submission of supporting documents, and the specific treatment of certain transaction categories, including FX purchases for foreign currency deposit (“FCD”) accounts, gold import payments, and hedging transactions. The Draft Notification is expected to have material practical implications for authorized juristic persons, financial institutions, and business operators engaged in cross-border FX transactions.

Key Amendments

1. FX Purchases for Own Foreign Currency Deposit (FCD) Accounts

Under the Draft Notification, where a customer purchases foreign currency solely for deposit into its own FCD account, authorized juristic persons are no longer required to request supporting documents, irrespective of the transaction amount.

This amendment represents a significant relaxation of administrative requirements and reflects a regulatory policy direction toward facilitating liquidity management and FX flexibility for market participants. Supervisory oversight will continue to be exercised under the existing FCD regulatory framework.

2. FX Purchases for Gold Import Payments

In contrast to the relaxation described above, the Draft Notification expressly tightens documentary requirements for FX purchases made for the purpose of settling payments for imported gold.

For such transactions, authorized juristic persons must request supporting documents in all cases, without regard to transaction value. No monetary threshold or exemption applies.

This differentiated treatment reflects the regulator’s continued emphasis on monitoring transactions considered to carry heightened financial, market, or systemic risk.

3. Timing for Submission of Supporting Documents

The Draft Notification clarifies and differentiates timing requirements for the submission of supporting documents as follows:

General Rule Supporting documents must be submitted on the transaction date (the “Trade Date”).

Relaxation for Certain Spot Transactions For spot FX transactions not related to gold import payments, authorized juristic persons may, where justified by necessity and reasonableness, permit the submission of supporting documents on the settlement date (the “Settlement Date”) in lieu of the Trade Date.

Mandatory Submission on the Settlement Date Submission of supporting documents on the Settlement Date is required for:

  • forward FX transactions with a value of USD 200,000 or equivalent or more; and
  • FX purchases for gold import payments, regardless of amount.

4. FX Transactions for Hedging Based on Forecast Exposure

For FX transactions entered into for the purpose of hedging or managing exchange rate risk arising from forecast exposure, the Draft Notification introduces greater flexibility in the categories of acceptable documentation.

In addition to forecast-based documents, customers may now submit:

  • evidence of underlying obligations; or
  • documents demonstrating exposure to exchange rate risk, such as billing notices or contractual indicators.

This change more closely aligns regulatory practice with commercial reality, particularly in the context of treasury and risk management operations.

5. Sale of Foreign Currency by Residents

The Draft Notification amends the existing provisions governing the sale of foreign currency by persons resident in Thailand, applicable to both spot and forward transactions.

Authorized juristic persons are permitted to facilitate such transactions on a broader basis, in particular where the seller:

  • will receive foreign currency income in the future; or
  • maintains funds in its own FCD account.

This amendment provides additional operational flexibility while preserving applicable reporting and disclosure obligations.

Key Takeaways

  • FCD Transactions: FX purchases for deposit into a customer’s own FCD account no longer require supporting documents, regardless of amount.
  • Gold Imports: FX purchases for gold import payments remain strictly regulated, with mandatory documentation required in all cases.
  • Document Timing: While the Trade Date remains the default submission deadline, limited flexibility has been introduced for non-gold spot FX transactions.
  • Large Forward FX Transactions: Forward contracts valued at USD 200,000 or more require documentation to be submitted on the Settlement Date.
  • Hedging Transactions: A broader range of documentary evidence is now acceptable for forecast-based hedging arrangements.
  • Operational Impact: Financial institutions and business operators are advised to review and update their internal policies, compliance checklists, and transaction workflows to ensure alignment with the Draft Notification.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Proposed Updates to the Non-Preferential Certificate of Origin Framework for Exports to the United States and the European Union

The Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) is conducting a public hearing from 1 April to 15 April 2026 on a draft notification concerning the verification of product origin for the issuance of Non-Preferential Certificates of Origin (“C/O“) for exports to the United States and the European Union (the “Draft Notification“).

The Draft Notification seeks to strengthen the criteria, procedures, and verification mechanisms governing origin certification for surveillance goods in relation to C/O issuance, in alignment with prevailing international trade measures. Key objectives include reinforcing monitoring systems, enhancing inter-agency coordination, and improving the verification of high-risk goods. These measures are intended to address risks of transshipment, origin misrepresentation, and evasion of anti-dumping duties and elevated tariffs, as well as to prevent circumvention of trade measures through the misuse of C/Os in customs declarations.

Key Principles and Implementation Framework

The Draft Notification introduces a mandatory origin verification mechanism for exporters seeking to obtain C/Os for surveillance goods destined for the United States and the European Union. Under this framework, exporters intending to declare Thai origin to foreign customs authorities via a C/O are required to undergo prior origin verification of the goods with the DFT. This requirement applies to goods listed in the annex as surveillance products, comprising 9 product groups for exports to the EU and 67 product groups for exports to the United States, all of which are subject to trade measures due to risks of origin misrepresentation.

1. Verification Procedure

Exporters must submit an application for origin verification through the DFT’s electronic system, together with relevant information and supporting evidence pertaining to the production process. The DFT will assess the origin qualifications of the goods and communicate the verification results through the same system. The results will serve as supporting evidence for subsequent C/O applications and will remain valid for a period of two years.

2. Enforcement

To monitor and enforce compliance with the mechanism, the DFT is empowered to conduct on-site inspections of business premises, production facilities, and storage locations where doubt arises regarding the production process — whether before or after the issuance of a verification result — in order to verify adherence to the applicable rules of origin.

3. Revocation

The DFT is further empowered to revoke a verification result where it is established that goods have been falsely declared as originating from Thailand through the use of a C/O, or where changes in production or export information result in non-compliance with the relevant rules of origin. In such cases, the revoked verification result may no longer be relied upon for future C/O applications.

Conclusion

The Draft Notification represents a significant tightening of Thailand’s non-preferential certificate of origin regime, particularly with respect to high-risk export categories. By introducing a mandatory pre-verification mechanism supported by electronic processing, enhanced inspection powers, and revocation authority, the DFT aims to strengthen the integrity of origin certification and ensure greater compliance with international trade rules. If implemented, the measure is expected to increase regulatory scrutiny for exporters while simultaneously enhancing the credibility and transparency of Thai export documentation in key markets, namely the United States and the European Union.

Key Takeaways

The primary objective is to prevent origin misrepresentation and circumvention of trade measures.

Mandatory origin verification is required prior to the issuance of non-preferential C/Os for exports to the United States and the European Union.

The requirement applies to surveillance goods across 9 EU product groups and 67 US product groups.

Applications are submitted and processed through an electronic system, with verification results valid for two years.

The DFT retains authority to conduct on-site inspections and revoke verification results where warranted.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Expanding Trade Network: Key Updates on FTAs with Partner Countries

Overview

In the context of an increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving global economy, Thailand has placed greater emphasis on expanding its international trade partnerships. The government has accelerated negotiations for Free Trade Agreements (“FTAs”) with key partner countries to enhance competitiveness and reduce trade barriers. Concurrently, Thailand is strengthening bilateral economic relations—such as with the Republic of South Africa—through strategic discussions aimed at promoting trade, exports, and investment. This approach reflects Thailand’s proactive commitment to creating long-term economic opportunities and expanding global market access.

Thailand’s Recent Developments

1. Acceleration of Free Trade Agreement Negotiations

In response to Thailand being subject to investigations under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 (B.E. 2517), which may result in additional import tariffs and potential investment restrictions, the Thai government has coordinated with the Ministry of Commerce to establish a dedicated task force. This task force is responsible for closely monitoring and addressing the potential impacts of such measures.

The Department of Trade Negotiations (“DTN”) has accelerated adjustments to Thailand’s international trade strategy, positioning FTAs as a key mechanism to diversify risk and mitigate trade barriers arising from U.S. trade actions. Priority negotiations are being fast-tracked with major partners, including the European Union (“EU”), the Republic of Korea, and ASEAN–Canada, with the objective of concluding these agreements by 2026 (B.E. 2569).

Thailand is also advancing previously signed FTAs that are currently undergoing domestic ratification, including agreements with the European Free Trade Association (“EFTA”), Bhutan, and Sri Lanka, with entry into force targeted for 1 January 2027 (B.E. 2570). In parallel, Thailand is upgrading existing agreements, such as the ASEAN–India FTA and the Thailand–Peru FTA, with completion expected by 2026 (B.E. 2569).

In addition, Thailand is actively participating in negotiations on the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement (“DEFA”), which is expected to play a pivotal role in advancing the regional digital economy. DEFA is anticipated to facilitate digital trade, reshape ASEAN’s market and production landscape, and enhance investor confidence, with negotiations scheduled for completion by November 2026 (B.E. 2569).

2. Economic Cooperation between Thailand and the Republic of South Africa

The Ministry of Commerce has adopted a proactive approach to strengthening trade cooperation between Thailand and the Republic of South Africa through bilateral consultations. These efforts focus on promoting high-potential exports and enhancing economic collaboration to achieve tangible and measurable outcomes, thereby expanding trade channels and export markets.

Both countries have emphasized the importance of advancing a strategic partnership aimed at reducing logistical and financial barriers to trade while promoting efficient bilateral exports. South Africa is well-positioned to serve as a distribution hub for the African region, while Thailand can function as a gateway for African products into ASEAN markets.

Furthermore, both parties have agreed to leverage the existing cooperation framework between Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) and Invest South Africa to systematically promote bilateral investment and facilitate cross-border business activities.

Implications

Exporters should conduct thorough reviews of applicable rules of origin and sourcing requirements and, where necessary, adjust their production structures to ensure eligibility for tariff preferences under Thailand’s FTAs.

To mitigate risks arising from U.S. trade measures, exporters are advised to adopt proactive strategies, including revising pricing structures and diversifying export markets. Businesses operating in affected sectors should closely monitor ongoing developments in the global trade landscape to ensure timely and effective responses.

Conclusion

Thailand’s proactive approach to international trade policy demonstrates the effective integration of legal instruments and strategic trade initiatives. The acceleration of FTA negotiations, coupled with the expansion of bilateral cooperation with key partner countries, serves as a critical mechanism for risk diversification and resilience in an increasingly volatile global trading environment.

These developments underscore Thailand’s adaptability to evolving international economic conditions and its strategic response to external trade pressures, particularly those arising from U.S. trade measures. Ultimately, such efforts aim to strengthen Thailand’s long-term economic competitiveness and enhance trade security.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand FDA — Proposed Food Labelling Rules for Prepackaged Foods

The Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 450 B.E. 2567 (2024) (“MOPH Notification No. 450”), issued pursuant to the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979), constitutes Thailand’s current regulatory framework governing the labelling of food in sealed containers. Certain aspects of the existing regime, however, are no longer fully aligned with prevailing international standards or evolving market practices — particularly with respect to allergen disclosure, food additive labelling, exemptions from labelling requirements, and the absence of mechanisms for digital labelling.

In response, the Ministry of Public Health has issued a draft notification on the labelling of food in sealed containers (the “Draft Notification”), which introduces a series of targeted amendments designed to strengthen consumer protection and modernize the applicable regulatory requirements. The Draft Notification is currently open for public consultation from 18 March to 16 April 2026.

Key Proposed Amendment

The Draft Notification introduces several substantive amendments, which may be broadly categorized into four key areas, as summarized below.

1.  Revision of Exemptions from Labelling Requirements

Under MOPH Notification No. 450, certain foods sold directly by manufacturers to consumers are exempt from labelling requirements, provided that the manufacturer is able to convey the relevant information to consumers directly.

The Draft Notification narrows this exemption by introducing nine categories of food that must bear labels in all circumstances, irrespective of the method of sale or whether information can be communicated directly to consumers. These categories are as follows:

  • food additives;
  • infant formula and infant formula for special medical purposes;
  • follow-on formula for infants (6–12 months) and young children;
  • supplementary food for infants and young children;
  • foods intended for special dietary purposes;
  • dietary supplements;
  • foods containing added extracts, nutrients, or synthetic substances;
  • foods subject to specific warning requirements under other applicable notifications; and
  • foods subject to specific manufacturing or storage requirements under applicable regulations.

This amendment reflects a risk-based regulatory approach, ensuring that higher-risk food categories remain subject to mandatory labelling requirements in all cases.

2.  Enhancement of Allergen Labelling Requirements

The Draft Notification revises allergen labelling requirements to improve clarity and achieve greater alignment with international standards. Key changes include:

  • Expansion of the allergen list:
  • the addition of sesame as a priority allergen; and
  • the inclusion of celery, mustard, and lupin as national and regional allergens.
  • Clarification of tree nut categories, with specific identification of almond, cashew, hazelnut, pecan, pistachio, walnut, Brazil nut, macadamia, and pine nut (and their derived products).
  • Removal of lactose from the allergen list, on the basis that lactose intolerance is not classified as an allergenic reaction under applicable scientific and regulatory frameworks.

These amendments are designed to enhance transparency for consumers and to bring Thailand’s allergen labelling regime into closer conformity with international best practice.

3.  Revision of Food Additive Labelling Requirements

The Draft Notification further refines the requirements governing food additive disclosure, with a view to better reflecting actual manufacturing practices. In particular, it permits additives that serve multiple technological functions to declare additional relevant functions, provided that their use is consistent with those functions.

At the same time, certain functions are no longer required to be declared on labels, specifically:

  • carriers; and
  • packaging gases.

These revisions seek to strike an appropriate balance between technical accuracy and regulatory practicability, reducing unnecessary complexity in labelling while maintaining an adequate level of transparency for consumers.

4.  Introduction of Digital Labelling

A significant development under the Draft Notification is the formal introduction of optional digital labelling — a mechanism not currently permitted under the existing framework. Digital labelling may be implemented through formats such as QR codes, NFC technology, or barcodes, and will be available for most food categories, with the exception of certain higher-risk products such as infant foods and foods intended for special dietary purposes.

Importantly, digital labelling is not intended to replace physical labels in their entirety. The following core information must continue to appear on the physical packaging:

  • product name;
  • food registration number;
  • net content;
  • list of ingredients;
  • allergen information;
  • warnings; and
  • expiry date or best-before date.

This approach reflects a broader shift towards technology-enabled regulatory compliance, while ensuring that essential information remains immediately accessible to consumers at the point of sale.

Current Status

The Draft Notification preserves the core regulatory framework established under the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979). Several points of clarification are noteworthy:

  • Pre-approval requirements are maintained for specific higher-risk food categories — including infant formula and foods intended for special dietary purposes — given the potential consequences of inaccurate labelling for consumer health and safety.
  • No dedicated committee mechanism is introduced under the Draft Notification.
  • The Draft Notification does not itself prescribe criminal penalties; however, non-compliance remains subject to sanctions under the Food Act.
  • Regulatory authorities retain discretionary powers in reviewing labelling content, including the authority to prohibit the use of certain wording were considered appropriate.

Key Takeaway

  • Thailand is transitioning towards a more risk-based and internationally aligned food labelling regime.
  • Labelling exemptions will be significantly narrowed, with particular focus on higher-risk product categories.
  • Allergen disclosure requirements will become more comprehensive and precise.
  • Food additive labelling rules are being streamlined to better reflect prevailing industry practice.
  • Digital labelling is being formally recognized, marking an important step towards modern and flexible compliance tools.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

U.S. Tariff Developments Post Supreme Court Ruling

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) represents a pivotal development in international trade law. The Court held that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-based import tariffs exceeded the scope of authority delegated to the President of the United States.

Although the ruling establishes clear constitutional limits on executive tariff authority, it does not diminish the central role of tariffs in U.S. trade policy. The administration’s swift recourse to alternative statutory mechanisms underscores continued reliance on tariff measures and heightens uncertainty for Thai exporters and other affected parties.

1.  Constitutional Limits on Tariff Authority

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the constitutional authority to set tariffs is vested in Congress. The Court concluded that IEEPA does not provide sufficiently clear authorization for the imposition of broad-based import duties; accordingly, it cannot serve as a valid legal basis for such measures.

Notably, the Court declined to order immediate remedies. Instead, it remanded the question of refunds to the United States Court of International Trade, leaving implementation to be resolved through established customs law procedures.

2.  Refunds: A Legal Entitlement Subject to Procedure

Although the tariffs have been declared unlawful, recovery of duties paid is not automatic. Importers must act within the U.S. customs law framework, including by filing timely protests and, where necessary, pursuing claims before the United States Court of International Trade.

Recent developments indicate that the Court of International Trade is moving toward a more structured refund mechanism, potentially inclusive of interest. However, the process remains procedurally complex and administratively burdensome, requiring proactive engagement from affected importers.

3.  Policy Realignment: Section 122 Tariffs

In response to the ruling, the U.S. President promptly invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a temporary tariff on imports from all countries. This measure reflects a strategic adjustment, demonstrating that the executive branch retains meaningful statutory tools to sustain its tariff policy objectives.

Key features of the Section 122 measure include:

  • A uniform global tariff rate of 10–15%;
  • A statutory ceiling of 15%;
  • A duration of up to 150 days, unless extended by Congress; and
  • Application in addition to existing duty obligations.

4.  Section 301 Investigation: Implications for 16 Jurisdictions

On March 11, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a Section 301 investigation covering 16 jurisdictions, including Thailand. The investigation examines whether certain trade practices constitute unreasonable or discriminatory conduct, with particular attention to structural overcapacity in the manufacturing sector.

The scope of the investigation remains broad and may extend to digital trade, pharmaceutical pricing, market access, and environmental policies. Under Section 301, the USTR is empowered to impose remedial measures, including additional tariffs and investment restrictions.

Thailand has been identified as a jurisdiction of concern, primarily owing to relatively low capacity utilization in the automotive, machinery, and rubber sectors, as well as concerns regarding potential tariff circumvention linked to increased foreign direct investment. These factors may result in heightened scrutiny of Thailand’s role in global supply chains.

The procedural timeline is as follows:

  • Government consultations;
  • Written submissions: March 17 – April 15, 2026;
  • Public hearings: commencing May 5, 2026; and
  • Expected completion within 150 days of initiation.

5.  Implications for Thai Exporters

The evolving U.S. tariff framework presents several material risks for Thai exporters:

  • Loss of competitive advantage: A uniform global tariff eliminates country-specific preferential treatment, reducing pricing differentiation.
  • Policy uncertainty: Temporary measures may be extended, modified, or replaced with more burdensome instruments.
  • Cost impact: Additional duties directly affect product pricing, margins, and overall competitiveness in the U.S. market.
  • Regulatory volatility: Rapid legal and policy shifts are increasingly a defining feature of U.S. trade policy, necessitating ongoing monitoring and agile response strategies.

6.  Practical Considerations

Thai exporters are advised to adopt a proactive and structured approach to managing tariff exposure. Recommended actions include:

  • Reviewing customs classification to ensure accuracy and minimize the risk of misclassification disputes;
  • Adjusting pricing and cost structures to reflect prevailing tariff obligations;
  • Monitoring import timing in accordance with U.S. customs entry requirements;
  • Coordinating with U.S. importers to preserve and exercise available refund rights; and
  • Conducting scenario planning to anticipate and respond to potential policy changes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump establishes meaningful constitutional constraints on executive tariff authority; however, it does not diminish the central role of tariffs in U.S. trade policy. The administration’s swift transition to alternative instruments — notably Section 122 and Section 301 — confirms continued reliance on tariff-based measures as tools of commercial and geopolitical leverage.

While refund opportunities may arise for duties previously paid under IEEPA authority, recovery remains procedurally complex and requires active legal engagement. For Thai exporters, the combination of heightened policy uncertainty, increased cost pressures, and intensified regulatory scrutiny underscores the imperative for proactive compliance, rigorous strategic planning, and the full integration of legal considerations into business decision-making.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

FDA: Food and Drug Administration Proposes Revised Food Advertising Notification

The Thai Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has issued a draft notification on food advertising (B.E. ….) (the “Draft Notification”), which proposes a comprehensive modernization of Thailand’s food advertising regulations. The existing framework, governed by the FDA Notification on Food Advertising B.E. 2564 (2021) (the “2021 Notification”), has been in effect since 31 March 2021. The Draft Notification is currently open for public consultation until 16 April 2026.

This initiative seeks to address practical challenges that have arisen since the implementation of the 2021 Notification. Key issues include the framework’s limited adaptability to evolving digital marketing practices, shifting consumer expectations, and the emergence of new product categories such as hemp-, cannabis-, and kratom-based items. The proposed revisions aim to resolve ambiguities faced by businesses, particularly concerning advertising claims and sustainability-related communications, while strengthening protections against misleading advertisements.

The Draft Notification introduces targeted amendments across five principal areas to enhance regulatory clarity, close existing gaps, and provide greater operational flexibility without compromising consumer safeguards.

Introduction of Product-Specific Advertising Rules:

The Draft Notification establishes dedicated advertising standards for specific food categories that were not adequately addressed under the current regime. These include:

  • Food supplements containing kratom; and
  • Food products incorporating hemp seeds, hemp oil, hemp protein, cannabis, or cannabidiol (CBD).

These provisions are designed to ensure appropriate oversight of these sensitive and increasingly prevalent product categories.

Revision of Prohibited Claims (Annex 1):

Annex 1, which lists prohibited claims regarding the quality, benefits, or properties of food, has been substantially revised. The previous fixed list of prohibited expressions is replaced by a broader, principle-based standard. Prohibited claims are now defined as those that create exaggerated or misleading expectations concerning the quality, benefits, or properties of food.

Specific examples that remain expressly prohibited include:

  • Terms such as “miraculous” or “extraordinary”;
  • Claims implying a cure, guaranteed results, or the absence of side effects; and
  • Statements suggesting endorsement or approval by the FDA.

The revised approach emphasizes the overall impression conveyed by the advertisement, enabling a more nuanced, case-by-case evaluation by regulators.

Expansion of Advertising Not Requiring Prior Approval (Annex 2):

The scope of advertising exempt from prior FDA approval has been broadened to better accommodate contemporary marketing practices. Permitted content now includes:

  • Expanded use of descriptive expressions related to taste, texture, and sensory attributes; and
  • Sustainability-related messaging, such as recycling symbols, carbon footprint indicators, and green certifications, provided they satisfy applicable conditions.

These updates facilitate more flexible communication while preserving safeguards against misleading practices.

Clarification of Advertising Requiring Prior Approval (Annex 3):

The Draft Notification provides clearer criteria for advertising that necessitate prior FDA approval, specifically claims relating to quality, benefits, or functional properties. Examples include:

  • Functional claims (e.g., those concerning probiotics);
  • “Free-from” claims (e.g., gluten-free); and
  • References to FDA-related awards or quality marks.

This clarification is expected to reduce uncertainty and promote greater consistency in regulatory application.

Revision of Warning Requirements in Advertising (Annex 4):

The framework for mandatory warning statements in advertisements has been updated to focus on relevance to specific advertising media. Additional warning obligations have been introduced for products involving kratom, cannabis, and hemp. The revised wording aims to enhance clarity and consistency across different media formats.

Regulatory Position:

The core elements of the existing regulatory framework remain intact:

  • Advertising concerning the quality, benefits, or properties of food continues to require prior FDA approval;
  • No new criminal penalties are introduced;
  • Non-compliance remains subject to penalties under the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979); and
  • Regulatory authorities retain broad discretion in assessing whether advertisements are misleading or non-compliant.

Key Takeaways:

The Draft Notification represents a significant modernization of Thailand’s food advertising regime. Principal changes include:

  • Introduction of product-specific rules for emerging categories such as kratom-, hemp-, and cannabis-based products;
  • Transition to a principle-based approach for evaluating misleading claims;
  • Greater flexibility for descriptive and sustainability-related advertising;
  • Enhanced guidance on claims requiring prior approval; and
  • Updated warning requirements tailored to advertising media.

These amendments collectively promote a more structured, transparent, and market-responsive regulatory environment. As the Draft Notification remains subject to public consultation and has not yet been finalized, businesses are advised to monitor subsequent developments closely. It is recommended that affected entities evaluate the potential implications for their advertising strategies, internal review processes, and overall compliance frameworks.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Employment vs Liberal Profession

Thai Tax Treatment of Physicians under Sections 40 (1) and 40 (6) of the Thailand Revenue Code

Background

As Thailand’s healthcare sector continues to evolve, the engagement structure between physicians and private hospitals has become increasingly diverse. Traditional employment relationships are often replaced or supplemented by hybrid arrangements, including revenue-sharing models and per-case compensation structures.

Against this backdrop, a recurring tax issue arises – Should a physician’s income be classified as employment income under Section 40 (1), or as income from a liberal profession under Section 40 (6) of the Revenue Code?

The distinction is critical, as it directly affects the availability of deductions and the overall tax burden.

Legal Framework

The Thailand Revenue Code distinguishes between:

  • Section 40 (1): income derived from employment, including salaries, wages and similar benefits; and
  • Section 40 (6): income derived from liberal professions, namely arts of healing, expressly including the medical profession.

While the statutory wording appears clear, its application in practice is highly fact-specific and has been shaped by both judicial interpretation and tax rulings issued by the Revenue Department in response to tax inquiries under applicable law.

Judicial Approach : substance over form

Thai Supreme Court (Tax Division) jurisprudence has consistently adopted a substance-over-form approach in determining the nature of a physician’s income.

In Supreme Court Judgment No. 1802/2533, the Court considered a physician engaged by a private hospital under a service-based remuneration model. The physician exercised discretion in treating patients and was compensated based on services rendered.

The Court held that such income could fall within Section 40 (6), emphasizing that:

•   the exercise of liberal profession judgment is central to medical practice; and

•   the use of hospital facilities does not, in itself, create an employment relationship.

However, the Court made clear that where the factual circumstances demonstrate:

•   Subordination to hospital management;

•   Fixed working hours; and

•   Characteristics typical of employment,

the income must be classified under Section 40 (1).

Revenue Department Rulings : administrative perspective

The Revenue Department has addressed similar scenarios through a number of rulings, which largely align with the Supreme Court’s approach, albeit with a stronger focus on operational control.

In these rulings, the Revenue Department has generally taken the position that:

•   Physicians receiving fixed monthly remuneration;

•   Working under assigned schedules; and

•   Operating subject to hospital direction

derive income under Section 40 (1), regardless of how the contractual relationship is described.

Conversely, the Revenue Department has accepted classification under Section 40 (6) where:

•   Remuneration is based on actual services performed (e.g., per patient or procedure);

•   Income varies depending on workload; and

•   The physician retains meaningful professional independence.

Particular weight is often given to whether the physician bears economic variability, which is viewed as indicative of independent professional activity.

Converging Principles

Taken together, the Supreme Court decisions and Revenue Department rulings establish a consistent principle:

The classification of a physician’s income depends on the true nature of the working relationship, not the contractual label or the professional title.

Importantly, while medicine is recognized as a liberal profession under Section 40 (6), this does not automatically determine the tax treatment in every case. The decisive factor remains the degree of independence versus control.

Practical Implications

For physicians, misclassification may result in reassessment, denial of deductions and potential penalties. Reliance on contractual wording alone is insufficient; actual working conditions must support the intended tax treatment.

For hospitals, engagement structures should be carefully reviewed. Arrangements involving:

•   Fixed or guaranteed payments;

•   Strict scheduling requirements; and

•   Integration into organizational hierarchies

may be vulnerable to recharacterization as employment relationships.

Hybrid models, common in practice, present the greatest risk, particularly where contractual independence is not reflected in day-to-day operations.

Key Takeaways

•   Substance prevails over form : Courts and the Revenue Department will look beyond contractual labels to the actual working relationship.

•   Professional status is not decisive : Although medicine is a liberal profession, not all physicians earn income under Section 40 (6).

•   Control is a key indicator : Fixed hours, supervision, and integration into hospital management point toward Section 40 (1).

•   Payment structure matters : Fixed remuneration suggests employment, while case-based or revenue-sharing arrangements support Section 40 (6).

•   Economic risk is relevant : Variable income linked to performance with indicative of independent professional activity.

•   Alignment is essential: Contracts, payment terms and actual practices must be consistent to withstand scrutiny.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Labor: The Case of Continuous Employment After Retirement – A Landmark Ruling on Severance Pay Continuity

In Thailand, it is a common practice for employees to reach the mandatory retirement age stipulated in company regulations, receive severance compensation as required by law, and then be rehired by the same employer under a new employment contract. This approach treats the post-retirement period as entirely separate employment, effectively resetting the length of service for future severance calculations. However, a recent Supreme Court decision has clarified that this outcome is not automatic and depends on the specific circumstances, intentions, and conduct of the parties involved.

Background of the Case:

The dispute originated from an employee who began working in 2010 in the position of financial controller. According to the company’s employee handbook, the retirement age was set at 55 years, which the employee reached in 2017. Rather than terminating the employment and paying severance at that time, both the employer and the employee mutually agreed to continue the working relationship without any severance payment being made upon reaching retirement age. The employee continued performing the same duties and receiving regular wages as before.

This arrangement persisted until 2020, when the employer decided to terminate the employment, citing retirement age as the reason, and paid severance based on the continuous service period from 2010 to 2020. The employee contested this, arguing that the original contract had ended upon reaching age 55 in 2017, constituting a termination that should have triggered severance pay at that point. Consequently, the post-2017 employment should be regarded as a new contract, entitling the employee to a second severance payment (a “double” compensation claim) upon the 2020 termination.

The case progressed through the courts. The Appellate Court for Specialized Cases sided with the employee, viewing the continuation as a new contract and requiring additional severance for the post-retirement period. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law:

The primary legal framework is the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended, particularly Section 118, which mandates severance pay upon termination by the employer (absent exceptions), with the amount scaled according to length of service (e.g., 30 days’ wages for 120 days to less than 1 year, up to 400 days for 20 years or more).

Section 118/1 specifically addresses retirement: Retirement at an age agreed upon by the parties or stipulated by the employer is deemed a termination under Section 118, paragraph 2, obligating severance payment unless otherwise provided. If no retirement age is set or it exceeds 60 years, employees aged 60 or older may elect to retire by notifying the employer, with 30 days’ notice, and receive severance.

The key interpretive issue concerns whether reaching the retirement age automatically terminates the contract or if continuation without severance payment indicates an extension of the original contract.

The Supreme Court’s Decision:

In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3114/2567, the Court overturned the Appellate Court’s ruling. It held that the employment contract did not terminate in 2017. The decisive factors included:

•  The employee handbook explicitly permitted the company to extend the retirement age on a case-by-case basis.

•  No severance was paid at age 55, and the employee continued working seamlessly with regular wages and duties.

•  The parties’ conduct demonstrated an intention to extend the existing contract rather than conclude the original one and commence a new one.

The court emphasized that termination due to retirement under Section 118/1 occurs only when the employer ceases to allow continued work and does not pay wages. Absent such actions—particularly where no severance is paid at the retirement point—the contractual relationship persists as a continuous extension.

Consequently, the length of service must be calculated as a single, unbroken period from the initial start date (2010) to the actual termination date (2020). The employer was not required to pay “double” severance; the single payment made in 2020, based on the full continuous service, satisfied the legal obligation.

Key Takeaways:

This ruling establishes an important precedent emphasizing the significance of parties’ intentions and actual conduct over formalistic interpretations:

•  For employers and HR professionals: Clearly stipulate provisions for extending retirement age in employee handbooks or regulations. To reset service length post-retirement, pay full severance at the retirement point and execute a distinct new contract with explicit terms indicating a fresh employment relationship.

•  For employees: Continuous service without severance at retirement can benefit long-term accumulation toward higher severance tiers (up to 400 days’ wages), though it defers immediate payout. Employees should review company policies and seek clarification on contract status upon reaching retirement age.

•  Overall: Judicial decisions in labor cases prioritize the substance of the relationship—evidenced by ongoing work, wages, and absence of severance—over mere labels, ensuring fairness while aligning with statutory protections.

This decision promotes clarity in employment practices and reduces disputes by underscoring the need for transparent agreements regarding retirement and continuation.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles