Category: Legal Updates

on by

Department of Intellectual Property Moves Toward AI-Enabled Examination and OECD-Aligned Governance Standards

Recent developments signal a significant shift in the modernization of intellectual property administration, with authorities introducing artificial intelligence (AI) – assisted examination tools, enhanced anti-corruption mechanisms, and governance reforms designed to improve transparency and efficiency. These initiatives reflect broader efforts to strengthen institutional integrity and align administrative practices with international standards associated with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The measures are particularly relevant for businesses, innovators, and intellectual property rights holders, as they may influence the way trademark and patent applications are processed, how enforcement priorities evolve, and how emerging legal questions surrounding AI and intellectual property are addressed.

Governance and transparency reforms:

Transparency and accountability have become increasingly important considerations in public administration, particularly in areas where significant economic interests are involved. Intellectual property registration systems are especially vulnerable to concerns regarding administrative discretion because examination outcomes can have substantial commercial consequences.

To address these concerns, new initiatives have been introduced to strengthen anti-corruption safeguards and improve stakeholder confidence in the intellectual property system. These include increased engagement with private-sector stakeholders and the development of a dedicated Sandbox mechanism intended to serve as a centralized platform for receiving and monitoring complaints relating to alleged misconduct or corruption in administrative processes.

The proposed Sandbox framework appears intended not only to facilitate reporting but also to improve transparency in complaint handling and case monitoring. If implemented effectively, such a mechanism could provide greater visibility into administrative processes while helping identify systemic risks that may affect applicants and rights holders.

The reforms are consistent with international trends emphasizing integrity, accountability, and transparency within public institutions. They also reflect increasing recognition that the effectiveness of an intellectual property system depends not only on substantive legal protections but also on the credibility and predictability of administrative decision-making.

Expanding the use of AI in trademark examination:

One of the most notable developments is the growing use of AI technologies to support trademark examination functions. Authorities have introduced AI-powered image search capabilities that allow preliminary identification of potentially similar or conflicting trademarks before applications are filed.

For applicants, such tools may reduce the risk of filing marks that are likely to face objections based on similarity to existing registrations. Early identification of potential conflicts can help businesses refine branding strategies, reduce unnecessary filing costs, and improve the overall quality of applications submitted for examination.

From a regulatory perspective, AI-assisted searching may also contribute to greater consistency in examination outcomes. Similarity assessments often involve complex factual evaluations, and AI tools may help examiners identify relevant precedents and potentially conflicting marks more efficiently.

Nevertheless, AI-assisted examination does not alter the legal standards governing trademark registration. Questions concerning distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, descriptiveness, and other statutory requirements remain subject to legal analysis and human review.

AI-assisted patent examination and prior-art searches:

Authorities have also expanded the use of AI technologies in patent examination processes. AI systems are being used to assist with prior-art searches and preliminary analysis of information obtained from international patent databases. These tools can support examiners in evaluating novelty and other patentability requirements by identifying potentially relevant references more efficiently than traditional search methods.

The introduction of AI-assisted patent examination reflects a broader global trend. Patent offices worldwide are increasingly exploring the use of machine learning and data analytics to manage growing application volumes, improve search capabilities, and reduce examination backlogs.

For applicants, improved search efficiency may ultimately contribute to more predictable examination outcomes and potentially shorter processing times. However, the quality of applications remains a critical factor. Authorities have identified deficiencies in patent drafting and claim preparation as continuing challenges, particularly among first-time applicants and smaller enterprises. Poorly drafted applications often require multiple rounds of amendment, increasing both costs and examination timelines.

As a result, businesses seeking patent protection should continue to prioritize high-quality patent drafting and strategic portfolio management despite the increasing availability of AI-assisted examination tools.

Reducing administrative discretion through digitalization:

The modernization effort extends beyond AI. Authorities have continued expanding digital service platforms, including electronic filing systems, online consultations, and electronic payment mechanisms. These initiatives are intended to reduce face-to-face interactions between applicants and officials while improving traceability throughout the application process.

Reducing direct interactions may help mitigate corruption risks and strengthen public confidence in administrative processes. Digital records also create auditable trails that can assist in internal oversight and compliance monitoring.

The increasing integration of digital technologies into intellectual property administration is consistent with broader government efforts to improve service delivery and enhance regulatory efficiency through digital transformation.

AI and copyright: maintaining a cautious approach

The relationship between AI and copyright remains one of the most closely watched issues in intellectual property law globally. While several jurisdictions are considering or implementing exceptions that permit text and data mining for AI training purposes, authorities have signaled a cautious approach that prioritizes the interests of creators and copyright owners.

Current copyright protection remains focused on works created by human authors. Authorities have also emphasized that the use of copyrighted materials for AI training should be subject to appropriate authorization and should strike a balance between technological innovation and the protection of creative industries.

Notably, there are currently no plans to introduce broad copyright exceptions specifically designed to facilitate AI training. This position contrasts with approaches under consideration in some other jurisdictions and suggests that rights holders may continue to enjoy relatively strong protections against unauthorized use of copyrighted materials in AI development.

For technology companies, AI developers, and businesses deploying generative AI systems, this means that copyright clearance strategies and licensing arrangements may remain important risk-management tools.

Growing enforcement challenges in the digital environment:

The rapid growth of online commerce has transformed the intellectual property enforcement landscape. Although overall infringement cases have reportedly declined, online infringement cases have increased dramatically, with authorities reporting a 286 percent increase in online-related violations.

This trend reflects the migration of counterfeit and infringing activities from physical marketplaces to digital platforms. In response, authorities have expanded cooperation with law enforcement agencies and major e-commerce platforms to facilitate enforcement actions against large-scale online infringers and improve mechanisms for removing infringing content and products.

Businesses should expect online enforcement to remain a significant regulatory priority. Rights holders may benefit from enhanced cooperation between government agencies and digital platforms, but they should also continue implementing proactive monitoring and enforcement strategies to identify and address online infringements promptly.

Looking ahead:

The combination of AI-assisted examination, digital transformation, governance reforms, and increased attention to online enforcement suggests that intellectual property administration is entering a new phase of modernization. While many of the announced initiatives remain at an early stage, they indicate a clear policy direction toward greater efficiency, transparency, and technological integration.

For businesses and rights holders, these developments may create opportunities for more predictable and streamlined administrative processes. At the same time, evolving approaches to AI, copyright, and digital enforcement will require continued monitoring as policymakers seek to balance innovation, economic competitiveness, and intellectual property protection.

Key Takeaways:

  • Businesses should expect continued digitalization of intellectual property services, including electronic filing, online consultations, and technology-assisted examination processes.
  • Authorities are expanding the use of AI-assisted tools in trademark and patent examination as part of broader efforts to modernize intellectual property administration.
  • AI is intended to support examination functions rather than replace human decision-making, with final determinations remaining subject to applicable legal requirements and expert review.
  • A proposed corruption-reporting Sandbox and related governance initiatives demonstrate increased emphasis on transparency, accountability, and OECD-aligned institutional standards.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

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

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

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

Existing Legal Framework:

Consumer Protection Law

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

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

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

Technology Crime Prevention Framework

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

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

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

Computer Crime Law

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

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

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

Emerging Platform Accountability Trends:

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

Several themes are likely to influence future policy discussions.

Enhanced Advertiser Verification

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

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

Possible measures may include:

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

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

Proactive Monitoring and Detection

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

This may include:

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

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

Notice-and-Takedown Mechanisms

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

Platforms may be expected to maintain clear procedures for:

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

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

Transparency and Accountability Measures

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

Potential measures could include:

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

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

Potential Regulatory Developments:

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

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

As a result, future initiatives could emerge through:

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

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

Implications for Platform Operators:

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

Areas for consideration include:

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thai Customs Department to Launch Reformed Tariff e-Service Platform to Enhance Transparency and Reduce Corruption Risks

The Thai Customs Department (“CD”) is planning to modernize its tariff classification system through a restructured platform known as the “Tariff e-Service,” which is expected to launch in approximately August 2026. The reform is intended to address longstanding inefficiencies in import and export procedures, strengthen tariff classification services, and mitigate corruption risks. More broadly, it aims to improve transparency, streamline customs procedures, and provide businesses with greater certainty in tariff classification and regulatory compliance.

Background

The digitalization of customs tariff classification in Thailand began in November 2017 with the introduction of the original Tariff e-Service system. That platform comprised two principal services:

(1) a tariff classification ruling information service; and
(2) an electronic Advance Tariff Ruling service.

The system was designed to reduce import-related risks by enabling importers to identify applicable tariff classifications and duty rates prior to importation, and to request Harmonized System (HS) codes in advance through an online channel, thereby supporting more predictable cost planning.

However, following nearly a decade of operation and amid evolving global customs practices, the system has become increasingly outdated. Businesses have found certain functions unduly complex and difficult to navigate, contributing to procedural inefficiencies and inconsistencies in practice. In addition, the CD has long faced challenges relating to bribery, unlawful interference, redundant procedures, and limited transparency — conditions that have created opportunities for misconduct on the part of both government officials and private-sector participants.

To address these challenges, the CD is introducing a reformed Tariff e-Service platform designed to provide businesses and the public with more accessible tariff classification information. The platform will serve both as an electronic tariff classification tool and as a centralized database of rulings issued since the original system was launched. By making classification information more readily accessible and reducing reliance on manual processes, the new system is expected to improve consistency, transparency, and efficiency in customs administration.

Principal Features of the New Tariff e-Service

The new Tariff e-Service represents a shift toward a fully digital, standardized, and more transparent customs framework. Manual and discretion-based procedures will be replaced by a unified self-service platform through which businesses and members of the public can search tariff classifications and submit advance tariff ruling requests online by uploading product specifications, technical information, and images.

The platform will be integrated with Thailand’s National Single Window (NSW), consolidating access to trade-related information from multiple government agencies through a single interface. The integration covers tens of thousands of tariff lines, including approximately 9,400 product categories subject to permit requirements from 23 government agencies.

The platform will also serve as a centralized information resource, enabling users to identify tariff classifications, applicable tax rates, and import and export requirements more efficiently. Notably, access to advance tariff rulings — previously available only to registered business operators — will be extended to the general public. Rulings issued through the system will remain legally binding for up to three years, providing greater certainty for business planning and reducing reliance on case-by-case interpretations by individual customs officers.

Key enhancements introduced under the reformed platform include the following:

  • Electronic tariff classification rulings — Rulings and notifications will be issued electronically rather than by post. The prior requirement to register as an importer or exporter has been removed, enabling both the general public and new market entrants to submit requests more easily. The system provides real-time status tracking, allows customs officers to upload supporting documents directly to the platform, and enables rulings to be linked directly to import declaration forms.
  • Enhanced search functionality — Users will be able to search for tariff information using product characteristics and other identifying details without requiring specialized customs expertise. The platform consolidates information from multiple sources, including World Customs Organization (WCO) classification opinions, appeal decisions, and advance tariff rulings, while also displaying information on prohibited and restricted goods under applicable laws and notifications.

Implications for Thailand’s Customs Regulatory Framework

The introduction of the reformed Tariff e-Service represents a significant development in Thailand’s customs regulatory landscape, aimed at modernizing administrative procedures, improving operational efficiency, and strengthening transparency in customs administration.

By reducing reliance on physical documentation and manual processing, the system is expected to:

  • shorten processing times and improve service delivery;
  • facilitate the electronic issuance of tariff rulings; and
  • provide businesses with greater certainty in planning, cost estimation, and compliance management.

Users will be able to request tariff rulings directly through the platform by submitting product information — including descriptions and images — with rulings delivered electronically. This is expected to simplify access to official customs interpretations and reduce administrative delays.

From a governance perspective, the platform strengthens accountability by ensuring that all procedural steps are recorded and traceable, thereby reducing opportunities for misconduct. The adoption of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and 3D X-ray scanning is expected to improve inspection accuracy, support risk-based targeting, and reduce reliance on randomized physical checks. Overall, the reform is expected to contribute to a more efficient, transparent, and reliable customs system that better supports trade facilitation and regulatory compliance in Thailand.

Key Takeaways for Importers, Exporters, and Regulatory Stakeholders

Businesses should benefit from greater certainty, improved access to customs information, and a more streamlined overall customs process.

The CD plans to launch the reformed Tariff e-Service in approximately August 2026, replacing the original 2017 platform with a modernized, fully digital tariff classification system.

The new platform is designed to be fully paperless and traceable, improving accountability and reducing corruption risks.

Integration with the National Single Window (NSW) will connect users to the requirements of multiple government agencies through a single interface.

Advance tariff rulings will be more accessible and will remain legally binding for up to three years, providing greater certainty for business planning and compliance.

Key enhancements include electronic rulings, real-time status tracking, document upload functionality, and direct linkage to import declaration forms.

The reform directly addresses longstanding challenges, including procedural complexity, inconsistent interpretations, administrative delays, and excessive reliance on officer discretion.

The adoption of AI and advanced inspection technologies is expected to improve inspection accuracy, enhance risk-based targeting, and reduce dependence on randomized physical checks.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

USTR Section 301 Forced-Labor Determinations: Implications for Thailand

Introduction

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has determined that 60 economies, including Thailand, have failed to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. The USTR concluded that these failures are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, making them actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974.

The determination signals a significant shift in U.S. trade policy and global supply-chain governance. The USTR has emphasized that the U.S. will no longer tolerate conditions that allow foreign producers to gain cost advantages through the use of forced labor, thereby placing American workers and businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Increasingly, access to the U.S. market is being linked to compliance with internationally recognized labor standards.

Forced-Labor Determinations

The USTR’s Section 301 investigations found that permitting goods made with forced labor to enter global supply chains undermines efforts to eradicate forced labor and creates artificial cost advantages for non-compliant producers. According to the USTR, such practices distort market conditions, reduce the profitability of businesses that comply with labor standards, and expose U.S. producers to unfair competition in both domestic and export markets.

The USTR also rejected arguments that domestic labor laws alone are sufficient to address the issue, noting that such laws typically regulate production within a country’s borders but may not prevent the importation of foreign goods produced with forced labor. Consistent with this position, Thailand was identified as one of the economies that failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on imports produced with forced labor. The USTR concluded that this failure undermines global efforts to eliminate forced labor and provides unfair competitive advantages to producers that rely on such practices.

Proposed Additional Duties (Import Tariffs)

To address these concerns, the USTR has proposed imposing additional ad valorem duties on imports from the investigated economies. The proposed tariff structure consists of two fixed rates:

• Tier 1 – 10% Additional Duty Rate

Applicable to economies that have implemented a forced-labor import prohibition, committed to doing so through reciprocal trade agreements, or established a partial regime aimed at preventing the importation of forced-labor goods. Examples include Canada, the European Union, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.

• Tier 2 – 12.5% Additional Duty Rate

Applicable to economies that have neither imposed nor effectively enforced a comprehensive forced-labor import prohibition. Thailand falls within this category, alongside several major U.S. trading partners, including China, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, and Singapore.

Limitation of Duties

To mitigate unintended economic consequences, the USTR has proposed a number of exclusions and limitations under Annex A of the Federal Register notice. These include:

• Articles and components already subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 relative to tariffs on steel and aluminum, thereby avoiding duplicate tariff treatment;
• USMCA-compliant goods originating from Canada and Mexico;
• Textiles and apparel eligible for duty-free treatment under CAFTA-DR;
• Informational materials, charitable donations, and accompanied personal baggage;
• Raw materials for which alternative domestic or non-U.S. sources are not reasonably available;
• Products whose inclusion could cause significant economic disruption or that cannot be produced in sufficient quantities within, or sourced outside, the U.S.; and
• Products for which additional duties would not materially advance the objectives of the investigation.

Opportunities for Stakeholder Participation

As the proposed duties have not yet been finalized, affected businesses and industry groups may participate in the rulemaking process through several procedural mechanisms:

• Hearing Requests – Submission of requests to appear as witnesses at the public hearings, accompanied by summaries of proposed testimony;
• Written Comments – Submission of detailed comments supporting product-specific exclusions or modifications to Annex A of the Federal Register notice;
• Public Hearings – Participation in hearings conducted by the Section 301 Committee at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, D.C.; and
• Post-Hearing Rebuttals – Submission of rebuttal comments responding to positions advanced by other stakeholders during the hearing process.

Key Takeaways

• The USTR has determined that 60 economies, including Thailand, failed to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on imports produced with forced labor, and these findings are actionable under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act.

• The USTR has proposed a two-tier tariff framework consisting of a 10% additional duty for economies with existing or partial forced-labor import prohibitions and a 12.5% additional duty for all other investigated economies.

• Thailand falls within the proposed 12.5% tariff category, potentially placing Thai exports at a competitive disadvantage relative to exports from economies subject to the lower rate.

• Annex A proposes several exclusions, including products already covered by Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act measures, USMCA-compliant goods, CAFTA-DR textiles and apparel, certain scarce raw materials, and non-commercial articles such as books, donations, and accompanied baggage.

• The proposed measures are not yet legally effective. Interested parties may participate in the public comment and hearing process before any final action is adopted.

• The USTR has also proposed a textile mechanism that could permit certain volumes of apparel and textile imports from qualifying economies to enter the United States at reduced tariff rates. It remains unclear whether Thailand will qualify for this mechanism.

• Exporters should anticipate heightened supply-chain due diligence requirements, increased scrutiny from U.S. buyers, and potential shifts in sourcing strategies as companies seek to mitigate tariff exposure.

• U.S. consumers may experience higher prices if additional import costs are passed through the supply chain.

• The final scope, exclusions, and tariff rates remain subject to revision following the completion of the public consultation and hearing process.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

NBTC’s Third Broadcasting and Television Master Plan (2026–2030): Expanded Oversight of OTT Platforms and the Future of Digital Broadcasting

Introduction:

Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) is currently conducting public consultations on the Draft Third Broadcasting and Television Master Plan (2026–2030), which is intended to serve as the principal policy framework for the broadcasting sector over the next five years.

The draft plan reflects the NBTC’s recognition that the media landscape has undergone significant transformation as audiences increasingly consume content through online platforms and streaming services rather than traditional broadcasting channels. In response, the NBTC is proposing a broader regulatory approach that extends beyond conventional television and radio operators to encompass digital content ecosystems, online media platforms, and emerging forms of content distribution.

The proposed framework also addresses growing concerns regarding misinformation, the competitiveness of domestic digital platforms, and the future of the digital television sector as existing licenses approach expiry.

Greater Focus on OTT and Online Media Platforms:

A key feature of the draft plan is the NBTC’s intention to strengthen oversight of over-the-top (OTT) services and online media platforms.

The traditional broadcasting regulatory framework was designed primarily for licensed television and radio operators. However, the rapid growth of streaming platforms, social media services, and other online content providers has significantly altered viewing behavior and challenged the effectiveness of existing regulatory models.

The draft plan therefore contemplates the development of regulatory mechanisms appropriate for the digital environment, including measures aimed at enhancing accountability and governance of online content distribution platforms. While the specific regulatory tools remain under consideration, the proposal signals the NBTC’s intention to play a more active role in overseeing digital media services that reach Thai audiences.

This policy direction reflects a broader recognition that online platforms have become an integral part of the communications ecosystem and increasingly influence public discourse, information consumption, and media competition.

Measures to Combat Fake News and Harmful Content:

The draft plan identifies misinformation, disinformation, and content that may create social division or public disorder as important regulatory concerns.

The NBTC proposes closer cooperation with relevant government agencies, media organizations, and digital platform operators to strengthen mechanisms for monitoring and addressing false or misleading information disseminated through broadcasting and online channels.

Particular attention is expected to be given to content that may affect public safety, national security, social harmony, or public confidence in state institutions. The draft plan also contemplates the development of systems that promote responsible media practices and improve public awareness regarding information verification.

Although detailed implementation measures have not yet been announced, platform operators and content providers should anticipate increased regulatory attention to content governance and compliance frameworks in the coming years.

Promotion of Domestic Digital Platforms and Local Content:

Another important objective of the draft plan is the promotion of domestic digital platforms and the strengthening of Thailand’s content industry.

The NBTC has expressed support for initiatives that enhance the competitiveness of local media operators and encourage the development of platforms capable of serving Thai audiences while promoting domestic content creation.

The draft plan also seeks to encourage innovation in broadcasting technologies and digital content distribution. Such initiatives are intended to support sustainable growth within the media sector and reduce structural disadvantages faced by local operators in competing with large international digital platforms.

This policy direction aligns with broader national objectives relating to digital economy development and technological self-reliance.

Preparing for the Post-2029 Digital Television Landscape:

The draft plan also addresses the future of the digital television industry as existing digital television licenses are expected to expire around 2029.

Since the transition to digital broadcasting, television operators have faced substantial economic pressures arising from changing consumer behavior, fragmentation of audiences, and increasing competition from online media services. These developments have raised questions regarding the long-term sustainability of the current broadcasting model.

In response, the NBTC intends to develop a roadmap for the future of digital television. The roadmap is expected to examine the role of terrestrial broadcasting in an increasingly digital environment, potential adjustments to licensing frameworks, spectrum management strategies, and measures to support industry sustainability.

The outcome of these discussions is likely to influence the structure of Thailand’s broadcasting sector for years to come and may have significant implications for broadcasters, investors, content producers, and telecommunications operators.

Implications for Businesses:

The draft master plan demonstrates a regulatory shift towards a more integrated approach to media governance, where distinctions between traditional broadcasting services and online content platforms are becoming less pronounced.

Businesses that may be affected by future policy developments include:

  • OTT and streaming service providers;
  • social media and content-sharing platforms;
  • broadcasters and television operators;
  • telecommunications service providers;
  • digital advertising businesses; and
  • content creators and media companies.

Although the draft plan does not itself create immediate legal obligations, it provides a clear indication of the NBTC’s regulatory priorities and may serve as the foundation for future regulations, licensing requirements, and policy initiatives affecting the digital media sector.

Stakeholders should therefore monitor the consultation process and forthcoming regulatory developments closely.

Outlook:

The Draft Third Broadcasting and Television Master Plan (2026–2030) reflects the NBTC’s effort to modernize the regulatory framework governing Thailand’s broadcasting and media sectors in response to technological change and evolving consumer behavior.

By focusing on OTT regulation, combating misinformation, promoting domestic digital platforms, and preparing for the expiry of digital television licenses, the NBTC is signaling a broader and more proactive approach to media regulation in the digital era.

While many of the proposed measures remain at the policy stage, the draft plan provides important insight into the direction of future regulatory developments and the issues that are likely to shape Thailand’s communications and media landscape over the coming years.

Key Takeaways:

  • The NBTC is consulting on the Draft Third Broadcasting and Television Master Plan (2026–2030), which will guide broadcasting policy over the next five years.
  • Regulatory attention is increasingly shifting towards OTT services and online media platforms as digital content consumption continues to grow.
  • The draft plan proposes stronger measures to address fake news, disinformation, and other forms of harmful online content.
  • The NBTC seeks to promote domestic digital platforms and strengthen the competitiveness of Thailand’s content industry.
  • A roadmap is being developed to address the future of digital television ahead of the expected expiry of digital TV licenses around 2029.

Although no immediate legal obligations arise from the draft plan, businesses should monitor future regulatory initiatives that may affect platform governance, content regulation, and broadcasting operations.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

NBTC: Notification Regulating the Use of Foreign Internet Services

The Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has issued an official notification concerning the use of internet services, with specific provisions addressing the utilization of foreign internet connections and related cross-border activities.

Background and Objectives:

The notification, titled NBTC Office Notification Re: Use of Internet Services, aims to strengthen oversight of internet usage in Thailand. It focuses on ensuring national security, preventing misuse of domestic infrastructure for foreign operations, and protecting consumers while promoting responsible digital practices.

This regulation aligns with Thailand’s broader efforts to combat cross-border cybercrime, data misuse, and unauthorized international connectivity that could bypass local licensing requirements.

Key Provisions:

The notification covers several critical areas related to internet service usage, particularly those involving foreign elements:

1.  Restrictions on Foreign Internet Routing — Prohibitions on using Thai-registered IP addresses or domestic networks to provide or facilitate internet services abroad without proper authorization.

2.  Cross-Border Service Controls — Regulations governing international data roaming, foreign satellite internet connections, and unauthorized use of overseas internet gateways that may impact national infrastructure.

3.  Consumer Protections — Guidelines for users on managing international roaming charges and recommendations to disable foreign data services when not needed to prevent unexpected costs.

4.  Prohibited Practices — Bans on leveraging Thai telecommunications networks for illegal foreign business operations, including those that could enable fraud, scams, or other cyber threats originating from outside Thailand.

5.  Compliance Requirements — Mandatory standards for internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor and prevent unauthorized foreign internet usage through their networks.

Implications for Stakeholders:

•  Consumers: Greater awareness and tools to control foreign data usage, reducing risks of bill shock from international roaming and enhancing privacy.

•  Service Providers: Must implement stricter controls on network usage to avoid facilitating foreign internet services illegally.

•  Businesses and Operators: Enhanced scrutiny on cross-border connectivity, particularly for companies involved in international telecommunications.

Key Takeaways:

•  The NBTC notification emphasizes responsible use of foreign internet services to safeguard Thailand’s digital sovereignty and national security.

•  Thai networks must not be misused to support unauthorized foreign internet operations.

•  Consumers are encouraged to manage international roaming settings proactively.

•  All stakeholders should review the full official document on the NBTC website to ensure full compliance with the updated regulations.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

PDPA: PDPC Clarifies the Scope of “Health Data”

The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has recently issued an advisory opinion addressing whether the appearance of the Thai Red Cross symbol and the wording indicating organ donor status on Thailand’s new driver’s license constitutes sensitive personal data under Section 26 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). While the factual question concerned organ donor status, the more significant legal development lies in the PDPC’s interpretation of what constitutes “health data” under the PDPA.

The issue arose following the Department of Land Transport’s introduction of a new driver’s license format that allows license holders who have registered their intention to donate organs with the Thai Red Cross Society to display the Thai Red Cross symbol together with a statement indicating organ donor status on the face of the license. A private-sector organization sought clarification from the PDPC regarding whether such information should be treated as sensitive personal data under Section 26 of the PDPA.

The PDPC’s Interpretation of Health Data:

Section 26 of the PDPA imposes enhanced protection requirements on certain categories of sensitive personal data, including data concerning health. However, the PDPA does not provide a specific definition of “health data”.

In considering the issue, the PDPC examined various legislative and regulatory sources relating to healthcare information. The Committee observed that information concerning healthcare services, healthcare-related intentions and the expression of wishes regarding organ donation have traditionally been regarded as information connected with an individual’s health and healthcare status.

The PDPC emphasized that the information displayed on the driver’s license is not merely a symbol or administrative notation. Rather, it reflects an individual’s expressed intention relating to organ donation and is intended to be used by medical personnel and relevant authorities in circumstances where healthcare services and organ transplantation procedures may become relevant. As a result, the information is intrinsically connected to healthcare services and medical treatment.

On that basis, the PDPC concluded that the status of being a registered organ donor, as displayed on a driver’s license, constitutes health-related personal data and therefore falls within the scope of Section 26 of the PDPA.

A Broader Understanding of Health Data:

The opinion provides an important indication of how the PDPC is likely to interpret health data in future cases.

Traditionally, organizations often associate health data with medical records, diagnoses, treatment histories, laboratory results or information concerning physical and mental conditions. The PDPC’s reasoning suggests that the concept is broader.

The Committee’s analysis indicates that information may qualify as health data even where it does not reveal a specific illness or medical condition. Information that reflects an individual’s healthcare-related intentions, healthcare choices or participation in healthcare-related activities may also fall within the scope of health data where such information is sufficiently connected to healthcare services or medical treatment.

This interpretation reinforces the need for organizations to assess the nature and purpose of information being processed rather than relying solely on traditional assumptions about what constitutes medical information.

Practical Implications:

Although the PDPC classified organ donor status as health data, the opinion also contains practical guidance for organizations that routinely collect copies of driver’s licenses.

The Committee recognized that where a data controller collects a copy of a driver’s license solely for identification or verification purposes and does not collect, use or disclose the organ donor information for the purpose of identifying an individual’s donor status or obtaining health-related information, such processing should not automatically be regarded as the collection of health data under Section 26 merely because the information incidentally appears on the document.

This aspect of the opinion will be particularly relevant to banks, financial institutions, insurers, employers, telecommunications providers and other organizations that regularly collect copies of official identification documents as part of their business operations.

At the same time, organizations that specifically collect, use or disclose information concerning donor status or other healthcare-related declarations should carefully assess whether Section 26 applies and whether an appropriate legal basis exists for the processing of such sensitive personal data.

Key Takeaways:

  • The PDPC has confirmed that organ donor status displayed on a driver’s license constitutes health-related personal data under Section 26 of the PDPA.
  • The opinion suggests that health data is not limited to medical records or information concerning diseases and medical conditions.
  • Information reflecting healthcare-related intentions, wishes or decisions may also constitute health data where it is closely connected to healthcare services or medical treatment.
  • Organizations should review whether information they process could reveal healthcare-related intentions or decisions, even where it does not contain traditional medical information.

The incidental collection of such information as part of a driver’s license copy does not necessarily mean that the organization is processing health data, provided the information is not used for health-related purposes.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Introducing a 200% Tax Deduction Incentive for Digital Transformation of SMEs

Introduction:

As digital transformation continues to reshape business operations and competitiveness, the Thai Government has introduced a significant tax incentive aimed at encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to adopt digital technologies. Pursuant to the Royal Decree Issued Under the Revenue Code (No. 802) B.E. 2569 (2026), eligible SMEs are entitled to claim a tax deduction of up to 200% of qualifying expenditures incurred for the acquisition of digital products and services.

The measure forms part of Thailand’s broader strategy to accelerate digital adoption, enhance productivity, and strengthen the competitiveness of domestic businesses in the digital economy.

Overview of the Tax Incentive:

Under the Royal Decree, qualifying SMEs may deduct eligible digital-related expenses at twice the actual amount incurred for corporate income tax purposes. The enhanced deduction applies to expenditures relating to digital products and services procured from vendors or service providers registered or certified by the Digital Economy Promotion Agency (DEPA).

The incentive covers a wide range of digital investments, including:

  • Software acquisition and licensing fees;
  • Cloud computing and digital platform services;
  • Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and business management systems;
  • Smart devices and digital hardware;
  • Digital technology consulting and implementation services;
  • Cybersecurity solutions and related digital services; and
  • Other digital products or services approved under the applicable DEPA framework.

The policy is intended to lower the effective cost of digital adoption while encouraging businesses to modernize their operations and improve efficiency.

Eligible Businesses:

To qualify for the enhanced deduction, a taxpayer must satisfy the SME criteria prescribed under the Royal Decree. Specifically, the business must:

  • Have paid-up registered capital not exceeding THB 5 million as of the end of the accounting period; and
  • Generate annual revenue not exceeding THB 30 million.

Only businesses meeting both conditions are eligible to claim the incentive.

Deduction Amount and Limitation:

Eligible expenditures may be deducted at 200% of the actual amount paid, subject to a maximum qualifying expenditure of THB 300,000.

For example, if an eligible SME incurs THB 150,000 in qualifying software or digital service expenses, it may claim a tax deduction of THB 300,000 when calculating its corporate income tax liability.

The incentive applies to qualifying expenditures incurred between 24 June 2025 and 31 December 2027.

Practical Tax Benefits:

The enhanced deduction effectively reduces the taxable profit of qualifying businesses and lowers their corporate income tax burden.

For instance, if a company purchases an eligible system for THB 300,000:

  • Under normal tax rules, the company may deduct THB 300,000 as an expense.
  • Under the Royal Decree, the company may deduct THB 600,000.

The additional THB 300,000 deduction reduces taxable income and can generate meaningful tax savings, particularly for growing businesses investing in digital infrastructure.

Beyond the immediate tax benefit, the incentive encourages SMEs to accelerate investments in technology that may improve operational efficiency, data management, customer engagement, and cybersecurity resilience.

Compliance Considerations:

Businesses seeking to utilize the incentive should carefully consider the following legal and tax compliance issues.

Verification of DEPA Registration:

The enhanced deduction is available only for qualifying purchases or services obtained from vendors and service providers that have been registered or certified under the relevant DEPA program. Businesses should conduct appropriate due diligence before entering into transactions.

Qualification of Expenditures:

Not all technology-related expenditures automatically qualify for the enhanced deduction. Businesses should review whether a particular expense falls within the categories recognized by the Royal Decree and relevant implementing regulations.

Interaction with Other Tax Incentives:

Companies receiving benefits under other incentive regimes, including Board of Investment (BOI) promotion programs or research and development tax incentives, should evaluate whether multiple incentives may be claimed concurrently and ensure compliance with any anti-double-dipping restrictions.

Policy Significance:

The introduction of the 200% tax deduction reflects Thailand’s continued commitment to promoting digital transformation among SMEs. By reducing the after-tax cost of digital investment, the Government aims to encourage broader adoption of modern technologies and strengthen the country’s digital economy.

For many SMEs, the measure presents a timely opportunity to invest in software, cloud solutions, cybersecurity systems, and digital business processes while simultaneously benefiting from substantial tax savings.

Key Takeaways:

  • Eligible SMEs with paid-up capital of not more than THB 5 million and annual revenue not exceeding THB 30 million may claim a 200% tax deduction for qualifying digital expenditures.
  • The incentive applies to expenditures on software, digital services, smart devices, cloud solutions, cybersecurity systems, and other approved digital technologies.
  • Qualifying products and services must be purchased from suppliers or service providers registered or certified by DEPA.
  • The enhanced deduction is available for expenditures incurred from 24 June 2025 through 31 December 2027.
  • The maximum qualifying expenditure eligible for the enhanced deduction is THB 300,000.
  • Businesses should maintain comprehensive supporting documentation and verify eligibility requirements before claiming the incentive.
  • The measure represents a significant opportunity for SMEs to reduce tax liabilities while accelerating digital transformation initiatives.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Employment: Supreme Court Judgment No. 9052/2559 Reinforces Protections for Older Workers in Thailand’s Private Sector

1. Background about retirement age in the private sector:

In Thailand’s private sector, no universal mandatory retirement age is fixed by statute for all employers. Retirement is primarily governed by employment agreements, internal work regulations, or company policies. Prior to the Labour Protection Act (No. 6) B.E. 2560 (2017), which introduced Section 118/1, the legal framework was less explicit. This amendment clarified that retirement—whether pursuant to agreement or employer policy—constitutes termination of employment, thereby entitling the employee to statutory severance pay under Section 118.

In the absence of a stipulated retirement age in contracts or policies, or where the stipulated age exceeds 60 years, an employee aged 60 or above may elect to retire upon 30 days’ notice, with severance payable. In practice, many private sector organizations set retirement ages between 55 and 60 years. However, the application of such policies must adhere to principles of fairness, consistency, and non-discrimination, particularly as Thailand addresses the challenges of an aging society.

2. Compulsory compensation? What does the labor law say?

Under Section 118 of the Labour Protection Act, termination of employment—including retirement initiated by employer policy—requires the employer to pay severance compensation based on the employee’s length of service. The prescribed minimum rates include:

•  1 year but less than 3 years: not less than 90 days’ wages;

•  3 years but less than 6 years: not less than 180 days’ wages;

•  10 years or more: not less than 300 days’ wages (with potential enhancements for longer service).

Retirement is explicitly treated as employer-initiated termination when enforced through policy or agreement, triggering these obligations. Employers cannot circumvent severance by characterizing retirement as voluntary resignation. Furthermore, the arbitrary or discriminatory application of retirement policies may expose employers to claims of unfair dismissal.

3. Ruling – Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment No. 9052/2559:

Supreme Court Judgment No. 9052/2559 stands as a landmark decision in Thai labour jurisprudence concerning unfair termination and age-related employment practices. The case involved a head editor of a Chinese-language newspaper who commenced employment at age 55 and served for approximately 22 years until his termination at age 77. The employer introduced a new retirement policy aimed at organizational restructuring and recruiting younger staff, offering statutory severance equivalent to 300 days’ wages.

The Central Labour Court initially upheld the termination as a legitimate exercise of managerial authority for business improvement, noting the provision of full severance and absence of personal malice. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling the termination an unfair dismissal. The Court adopted a substantive justice approach, scrutinizing the specific circumstances rather than accepting the policy at face value.

Key elements of the Supreme Court’s reasoning were:

•  Nature of the Work: The position required specialized linguistic, editorial, and academic expertise in Chinese-language publishing. Such roles typically benefit from accumulated knowledge and experience, which increase with age, rather than physical capabilities that may decline.

•  Employee’s Performance Record: The plaintiff maintained exemplary performance with perfect attendance and no health-related issues. Notably, the employer had recently promoted him and increased his salary, actions inconsistent with claims of diminished capability.

•  Validity of the Retirement Policy: The newly introduced policy lacked clear, objective, equitable, and pre-announced criteria. It was viewed as an ad hoc measure rather than a transparent, consistently applied rule, rendering it an insufficient justification for termination, especially when motivated primarily by age.

The Supreme Court remanded the case for determination of damages, including interest at 7.5% per annum. The judgment emphasizes that while employers retain managerial prerogative, age-based retirement decisions must be supported by objective, job-related justifications and cannot serve as a pretext for the arbitrary replacement of experienced personnel. Although issued prior to the 2017 amendments, the ruling remains highly relevant and continues to guide the application of fairness standards in retirement and termination cases.

Key Takeaway:

Supreme Court Judgment No. 9052/2559, together with the statutory framework under the Labour Protection Act, underscores that chronological age alone does not justify termination in Thailand’s private sector. Courts will prioritize individual capability, performance evidence, and substantive fairness, particularly in knowledge-intensive roles. Employers are advised to maintain transparent, consistently applied, and objectively justified retirement policies supported by legitimate business needs. This jurisprudence strengthens protections for capable older workers while encouraging responsible workforce management practices in Thailand’s aging society.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Ride Sharing: Guidelines for Platforms and Drivers Under New Strict Regulations

In a significant move to enhance passenger safety and formalize the ride-sharing industry, Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (DE), the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), and the Department of Land Transport (DLT) have implemented comprehensive regulations for ride-sharing (Ride Sharing) platforms. The new framework, effective from March 31, 2026, shifts platforms from mere intermediaries to active overseers responsible for verifying drivers, vehicles, and service standards.

Background and Objectives:

The tightened regulations follow high-profile safety incidents involving ride-sharing services, particularly those affecting vulnerable users such as youth. Authorities aim to close regulatory loopholes, eliminate unregistered “ghost” drivers, and ensure all operations comply with public transport laws. The grace period for registration ended on March 31, 2026, after which full enforcement began.

The core announcement, issued by the Electronic Transactions Commission (ETC), outlines additional operational requirements for digital platform operators providing public passenger services (cars and motorcycles).

Key Requirements for Platforms:

Ride-sharing platforms (e.g., Grab, Bolt) must now fulfill enhanced responsibilities:

  • Strict Driver and Vehicle Verification: Platforms are required to verify that every driver and vehicle meets legal standards before accepting any booking. This includes real-time identity confirmation to prevent account sharing or impersonation.
  • Registration Mandates: Drivers must use vehicles properly registered as public transport — Ry.17 for motorcycles and Ry.18 for cars — with the DLT. Drivers must also hold a valid public driving license.
  • Ongoing Monitoring and Screening: Platforms must implement robust systems for background checks, continuous monitoring, and immediate suspension of non-compliant accounts.
  • Data Sharing and Transparency: Cooperate with authorities by sharing data on drivers, trips, and incidents. Platforms must also support the ETDA’s Driver Verify system to streamline registration.
  • Passenger Safety Measures: Enhanced features for identity verification (including digital ID integration) and emergency response protocols.

Failure to comply can result in severe penalties, including civil and criminal liabilities, service suspension, or complete revocation of operations under relevant laws such as the Computer Crime Act.

Requirements for Drivers:

Drivers (Riders) operating on these platforms must:

  • Register their vehicles as public transport (Ry.17/Ry.18) with the DLT.
  • Obtain and maintain a public driving license, which includes passing criminal background checks.
  • Complete verification through the ETDA’s Driver Verify system to facilitate registration and obtain certification.
  • Use only their own registered account for every trip — no account sharing or proxy driving is allowed.
  • Ensure vehicles meet safety and technical standards set by transport authorities.

As of early 2026, authorities reported around 19,000–28,000 properly registered vehicles/drivers, with efforts ongoing to bring more into compliance. Unregistered drivers face legal penalties under transport and digital platform laws.

Collaborative Enforcement:

The DE, ETDA, and DLT are working closely with cybercrime police (Police Cyber Crime Center) to monitor compliance. Platforms have been instructed to strengthen systems following recent incidents, including immediate account suspensions and cross-platform alerts to prevent problematic drivers from switching services.

Key Takeaways:

  • Full enforcement of Ride Sharing regulations began on March 31, 2026 — the grace period has ended.
  • Platforms are now legally accountable for proactive verification and safety, not just facilitation.
  • All drivers must use registered public vehicles (Ry.17/18) and hold public driving licenses.
  • Non-compliance risks account suspension, fines, or platform shutdown.
  • The goal is to create a safer, more trustworthy ride-sharing ecosystem that protects passengers while supporting legitimate drivers and businesses.

These measures represent Thailand’s commitment to balancing digital innovation with public safety in the sharing economy. Stakeholders are encouraged to consult official ETDA and DLT channels for the latest guidance and support programs.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles