Tag: Business

on by

Criteria and Conditions for Allowing Foreign Nationals to Use Automated Passport Control Channels

Background

The Immigration Bureau introduced Automated Passport Control Channels under the Order No. 322/2566 (the “Previous Order”), effective 15 December 2023, to support tourism and improve immigration processing efficiency.

However, the original framework was relatively narrow in scope, covering only a limited group of foreign nationals and restricting outbound automated processing to Suvarnabhumi Airport. To enhance accessibility and accommodate a wider range of travelers, the Immigration Bureau subsequently issued the Order No. 196/2569 (the “Current Order”), which substantially expands the scope of the Automated Passport Control System.

Immigration Bureau Order No. 196/2569

To further facilitate immigration clearance for foreign travelers, the Immigration Bureau issued the Current Order, effective on 24 August 2026. The Current Order significantly expands access to Automated Passport Control Channels by broadening eligible nationalities, visa categories, and airport checkpoints. Here is what has been changed compared to the previous order.

  1. Expanded Eligible Nationalities

The most significant change is the expansion of eligible nationalities from only Singapore and Hong Kong under the Previous Order to 33 countries and territories under the Current Order.

The expanded list now includes major business and tourism markets such as the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Austria, Canada, and Singapore.

As a result, a substantially larger number of foreign travelers are now eligible to use Automated Passport Control Channels when entering and departing Thailand.

  • Expanded Visa Eligibility

The Previous Order primarily limited access to permanent residents, diplomats, government representatives, and certain designated individuals.

Under the Current Order, eligibility has been extended to holders of specified Non-Immigrant Visas as listed in its Appendix, covering a wider range of foreign nationals residing, working, studying, investing, or living with family members in Thailand.

  • Expanded Airport Access

Under the Previous Order:

  • Inbound automated channels were available only to a limited group of foreign nationals and specific type of passport holders.
  • Outbound automated channels were available only at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Under the Current Order:

  • Eligible foreign nationals as listed in its Appendix can use automated channels for both inbound and outbound travel.
  • Access is available at any international airport equipped with the Automated Passport Control System.
  • Operational Improvements

The Current Order also introduces procedures enabling immigration officers to promptly correct minor system errors, including issues related to visa classification, period-of-stay records, and automated overstay alerts, thereby helping to reduce delays and unnecessary processing.

  • Broader Coverage of Eligible Travelers

The Current Order also broadens eligibility to include:

  • Business: employees, executives, assignees, and investors;
  • Education: teachers, researchers, and students;
  • Family: spouses, parents, children, and other qualifying family members of Thai nationals, permanent residents, and eligible foreign residents.  

It is crucial to note that each criterion is evaluated independently. Therefore, if a foreigner fits into one of the eligible groups (such as holding a qualifying visa or belonging to an eligible nationality), they will be allowed to use the automated channels

Practical Examples

  1. Long-Term Business Professionals and Expatriates Holding Non-Immigrant “B” Visas

Under the Previous Order:

  • Inbound: No access to the Automated Passport Control System was allowed; even senior executives of multinational companies and citizens of major economies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and China. They  were required to use manual immigration counters.
  • Outbound: The Automated Passport Control System is available only at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Under the Current Order:

  • Inbound and Outbound: It is accessible at any international airport equipped with the Automated Passport Control Channels, provided the traveler qualifies under the Appendix of the Current Order and holds a valid re-entry permit where required.
  • Short-Term Business Travelers and Tourists

Under the Previous Order:

  • Inbound: No access to the Automated Passport Control System was allowed, except for Singaporean and Hong Kong passport holders.
  • Outbound: The Automated Passport Control System is available only at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Under the Current Order:

  • Inbound and Outbound: Eligible travelers from countries listed in the Appendix to the Current Order, including the United States, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom, can use Automated Passport Control Channels at any international airport equipped with the Automated Passport Control System.

Key Takeaways

  • Significant Expansion: Eligibility has increased from only two nationalities to 33 countries and territories under the Current Order.
  • Broader Access: Business travelers, expatriates, investors, academics, students, and family-based visa holders can now benefit from automated immigration processing.
  • Nationwide Availability: Automated outbound processing is no longer limited to Suvarnabhumi Airport, and it is now being used at any international airport equipped with the system.
  • Improved Efficiency: Immigration officers are now authorized to resolve minor system errors immediately, helping to reduce delays and unnecessary procedures.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Social Commerce Overhaul: From Seller Verification to Influencer Accountability

The regulatory gap created by social commerce:

Social commerce has blurred many of the distinctions on which traditional e-commerce regulation was built. A consumer may discover a product through an influencer, encounter promotional content on a social-media platform, communicate directly with a seller through the same platform, and complete the purchase without ever visiting a conventional online marketplace. The seller, the person promoting the product, the person paying for the advertisement, and the platform carrying the content may all be different parties. This structure creates a regulatory challenge because consumer protection laws have traditionally focused on businesses supplying goods or services and unlawful advertising, while digital-platform regulation has focused principally on platform operators. Social commerce sits between these regimes. Recent regulatory initiatives indicate that this gap is gradually being addressed—not through a single “social commerce” law, but through complementary regulatory work-streams involving the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) and the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB).

ETDA: From online marketplaces to identifying sellers and advertisers

The regulatory framework for digital commerce has already moved beyond conventional marketplace websites. Under the Digital Platform Services (DPS) framework, ETDA regulates qualifying digital platform services and has progressively developed requirements and guidance concerning online marketplaces, product and seller information, advertising, notice-and-takedown mechanisms, and other aspects of platform governance. Social media is increasingly relevant to this framework because commercial activity can take place within services that were not originally designed as conventional marketplaces. ETDA has also identified social commerce as an area requiring further regulatory attention.

A particularly important development is the increasing emphasis on the identity and traceability of sellers and advertisers. ETDA’s existing advertising guidance recommends that platforms establish procedures for checking advertiser information and verifying identity, maintain relevant advertiser records, and use mechanisms such as watchlists, blacklists, and whitelists. It also addresses screening advertisements before publication and monitoring them afterward through reporting and flagging mechanisms. ETDA’s developing measures for social-media platforms build on this approach by contemplating risk-based identification and verification of users, sellers, and persons placing advertisements. The underlying regulatory objective is increasingly clear: commercial activity conducted through social media should not permit the persons behind a seller account or paid advertisement to remain effectively unidentifiable. For social-commerce businesses, advertiser and seller identification may therefore become an increasingly important part of the platform compliance infrastructure.

OCPB: Bringing influencers into the consumer-protection framework

A parallel development is occurring under consumer protection law. The OCPB has proposed a substantial amendment to the Consumer Protection Act aimed at modernizing the framework for digital commerce and contemporary advertising practices. One of its significant features is the proposed expansion of responsibility within the advertising ecosystem, including persons hired to advertise goods or services. If enacted in its proposed form, this could bring influencers, content creators, and other persons engaged to promote products more directly within the statutory consumer-protection framework. This is particularly important for influencer marketing, where the traditional distinction between an advertiser and the medium carrying an advertisement can be difficult to maintain. Influencers may create promotional content themselves, demonstrate products, repeat claims supplied by brands, integrate commercial messages into personal recommendations or entertainment, provide purchasing links, and participate in affiliate arrangements. The person communicating the advertising message can therefore play a much more active role in influencing the consumer’s decision than a conventional advertising medium.

The OCPB initiative addresses a different part of the social-commerce problem from ETDA’s platform regulation. ETDA’s developing framework focuses substantially on the platform and the identification and traceability of persons using it for commercial activity, while the OCPB proposal strengthens responsibility for the consumer-facing commercial message and the persons participating in communicating that message. The proposed Consumer Protection Act amendment remains draft legislation, so its final scope may change during the legislative process. Nevertheless, its direction is important for brands, agencies, influencers, and content creators because compliance may increasingly extend beyond the business that ultimately supplies the product.

Two regulatory layers across one transaction:

The interaction between these initiatives is perhaps the most significant feature of the emerging framework. Consider a typical social-commerce transaction: a brand engages an influencer to promote a product; promotional content appears on a social-media service; the content directs consumers to a seller operating through that platform or another online channel; and a consumer purchases the product after relying on representations contained in the promotional content. Different regulatory obligations can potentially attach at several points along that chain. The platform may increasingly be expected to identify sellers and advertisers, retain information permitting them to be traced, screen certain advertisements, monitor problematic content, and provide mechanisms for responding to complaints or unlawful activity. The seller or brand remains subject to applicable consumer-protection and product-specific requirements. At the same time, the OCPB amendment could place influencers and other persons hired to advertise more directly within the consumer-protection regime.

The emerging division can therefore be summarized as follows: ETDA is developing the infrastructure of accountability, while OCPB is extending accountability through the advertising chain. The distinction is not absolute. ETDA’s role extends beyond identity verification into advertising screening and monitoring, while OCPB already exercises broad authority over consumer-facing advertising. The regulatory regimes should therefore be understood as overlapping layers rather than completely separate jurisdictions. Together, however, they address a central weakness of social commerce: the difficulty of identifying and allocating responsibility among the multiple parties involved between the creation of an advertisement and the eventual consumer transaction.

From regulating the seller to regulating the commercial chain:

These developments point toward a broader change in the regulation of digital commerce. Traditional e-commerce could largely be conceptualized around the consumer, the online seller, and the marketplace facilitating the transaction. Social commerce introduces additional actors: platforms distribute commercial content, advertisers may be different from sellers, influencers and content creators communicate product claims, and transactions can move from public social-media content into private messaging or other channels. The emerging regulatory framework increasingly follows this entire chain. Instead of asking only who sold the product, regulators are developing mechanisms that can also address who promoted it, who paid for or arranged the advertisement, who communicated the claims, and which platform facilitated the commercial interaction.

For businesses, social-commerce compliance should therefore no longer be treated solely as an issue for the legal entity making the final sale. Brands will need to consider how influencers and advertisers are selected, instructed, and supervised; whether advertising and product claims can be substantiated; what information must be supplied to platforms; and how responsibility is allocated contractually among brands, agencies, influencers, and other participants. Influencer and advertising agreements may require greater attention to regulatory compliance, disclosure and approval procedures, substantiation of claims, record-keeping, corrective measures, content removal, and cooperation with platforms or regulators. Platforms face a different compliance trajectory, with increasing expectations around identification, verification, screening, monitoring, traceability, and intervention where commercial activity creates risks for consumers.

An emerging social-commerce framework:

There is not yet a single comprehensive regulatory instrument governing social commerce. Instead, a network of complementary rules is emerging to regulate different stages of the same commercial activity. ETDA’s DPS framework and related initiatives provide the platform-governance layer; developing seller and advertiser verification requirements strengthen identification and traceability; and the proposed Consumer Protection Act amendment would strengthen the consumer-facing advertising layer by potentially extending responsibility more directly to influencers and other participants in the advertising process. Viewed together, these developments suggest that social commerce is moving toward end-to-end accountability—from the identity behind an advertisement to the person delivering the commercial message and ultimately to the transaction with the consumer.

Key Takeaways:

The social-commerce regulatory framework is developing through several complementary initiatives rather than one dedicated law. ETDA is strengthening the platform side of the equation, particularly the identification and traceability of sellers and advertisers, while OCPB is seeking to strengthen responsibility on the consumer-facing side, including the role of influencers and other persons engaged in advertising. Businesses operating through social commerce should therefore look beyond seller compliance alone. Brands, sellers, advertising agencies, influencers, content creators, and digital platforms increasingly form parts of the same regulated commercial chain, and the compliance focus is shifting from responsibility for the final sale toward accountability throughout the process by which a consumer encounters, evaluates, and purchases a product online.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Public Procurement Reform Would Shift Focus Beyond Price

The Cabinet has approved in principle a significant amendment to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act that could materially change how government agencies evaluate bidders and manage contractor performance. The proposal forms part of a broader legislative reform package and is intended to move public procurement away from an approach perceived as placing excessive emphasis on the lowest price. Importantly, the amendment remains a draft Act. Cabinet approval does not itself amend the existing procurement rules, and the proposal must proceed through the legislative process before becoming binding.

Greater Emphasis on Value and Performance:

A central feature of the proposed reform is a shift in supplier selection toward the interests of the procuring government agency, the purpose for which the goods or services will be used, and the bidder’s ability to perform the contract. The Government has previously explained the policy objective as enabling government agencies to obtain supplies and services that offer appropriate value and quality rather than evaluating procurement predominantly by reference to the lowest price.

This could be particularly significant for procurements involving technology, cloud services, cybersecurity, healthcare products, infrastructure, consulting and other sophisticated services. Suppliers whose offerings involve higher initial prices but stronger technical capabilities, security, reliability, service levels or lifecycle value may have greater scope to differentiate their proposals if the final legislation and implementing rules translate the policy into broader evaluation criteria. Businesses should nevertheless distinguish between the Government’s stated policy direction and the criteria that will ultimately become legally applicable once the legislation and related rules are finalized.

Stronger Consequences for Poor Performance:

The draft would also strengthen the Government’s ability to deal with contractors that fail to perform satisfactorily. The proposed amendments expand the circumstances in which contracts may be terminated and contractors may be designated as defaulting contractors where performance is defective or involves serious errors that cause, or could cause, damage to government agencies, the public, property or the environment. The proposal would also give heads of contracting government agencies greater authority to designate bidders or contractors as defaulting contractors, with the relevant information subsequently circulated through the government procurement system.

These changes could substantially increase the consequences of contract-performance failures. Government contractors should therefore consider strengthening project governance, acceptance procedures, quality controls, subcontractor management and documentation of contractual performance. For technology and service contracts in particular, careful documentation of service levels, testing, acceptance criteria, incident management and responsibility for delays may become increasingly important where poor performance could potentially lead not only to contractual remedies but also to restrictions on participation in future government procurement.

Procurement Appeals May Become More Costly:

Another significant element is the proposed introduction of measures intended to discourage procurement appeals made without reasonable grounds. The Government has indicated that frequent appeals can delay procurement projects and that the amendment is intended to reduce inappropriate use of the appeal mechanism. The contemplated framework includes security requirements for certain procurement appeals.

The details will be important. An appropriately calibrated security mechanism could discourage tactical challenges intended primarily to delay contract awards. However, if the required security is substantial, it could also affect the practical ability of smaller bidders to challenge procurement decisions. Businesses participating regularly in government tenders should therefore monitor the final provisions governing the amount of security, circumstances in which it must be provided, and conditions for its return or forfeiture.

Particular Relevance to Technology Procurement:

The move away from predominantly price-based evaluation could be especially relevant to government technology procurement. Technology solutions are often difficult to compare meaningfully by acquisition price alone because cybersecurity, resilience, interoperability, data-management capability, service levels, scalability and lifecycle costs can materially affect the overall value and risk of a project.

The proposed reform could provide a stronger statutory foundation for procurement approaches that recognize these factors. However, the Cabinet materials do not themselves establish cybersecurity certification, data-management capability, SLA performance or interoperability as mandatory evaluation criteria. Whether and how such considerations become part of procurement evaluations will depend on the final legislation, implementing regulations, procurement specifications and practices adopted by individual government agencies.

What Businesses Should Do Now:

Because the proposal is not yet binding, suppliers do not need to change their tendering practices solely as a result of Cabinet approval. Businesses that regularly contract with government agencies should nevertheless follow the legislative process and begin considering how their procurement strategies may need to evolve. In particular, suppliers may wish to strengthen evidence demonstrating technical capability and value beyond price, review internal controls for government-contract performance, maintain detailed records supporting compliance with contractual obligations, and reassess procedures for deciding whether and when to challenge procurement decisions.

Key Takeaways:

The proposed amendment represents a potentially important change in public procurement policy: from an emphasis on price toward a broader assessment of value, suitability and contractor capability. At the same time, the reform would increase the potential consequences of defective performance and could make procurement appeals more disciplined through security requirements.

For businesses selling sophisticated products and services to government agencies, the reform could create opportunities to compete more effectively on quality, technical capability and long-term value rather than price alone. Those opportunities would come with increased performance and compliance risk. For now, however, the existing procurement regime remains applicable, and businesses should monitor the draft as it proceeds through the legislative process.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Substantive Agreement Reached on the Thailand–United States Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART)

Introduction

On 1 September 2026, Thailand and the United States reached agreement on the substance of an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (the “ART”) in Washington, D.C. Technical details remain outstanding, and the ART has not been signed.

The tariff rate applicable to Thai goods is likewise unsettled. A Section 301 investigation into structural excess capacity remains before the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), and the final rate will depend on its outcome.

The 12.5 percent rate now in force did not simply replace an earlier rate. It is the latest in a sequence of four measures, each resting on a different legal footing, and in each case the preceding measure ceased to apply because its statutory basis lapsed, was struck down, or was superseded by negotiation.

How One Measure Replaced Another

  • Reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA: Thailand was subject to a reciprocal tariff of 36 percent imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). Following a joint statement with the United States, that rate was reduced to 19 percent, announced on 1 August 2025, which in turn led to the announcement of the ART framework on 26 October 2025.
  • The Supreme Court ruling: On 20 February 2026, the United States Supreme Court held, by six votes to three, that IEEPA does not confer authority on the President to impose tariffs. The reciprocal tariff regime fell away, including the 19 percent rate applied to Thailand.
  • Section 122: The United States then imposed a temporary tariff of 10 percent on all countries under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That authority carries a statutory limit of 150 days, and the measure expired on 24 July 2026.
  • Section 301: On the same day, the USTR announced tariffs under Section 301 covering 60 trading partners. Thailand was placed in the 12.5 percent band under the forced labor case. Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia were placed at 10 percent, leaving Thai exporters with a cost disadvantage of approximately 2.5 percentage points against those regional competitors.

Each step rests on a different statute. A rate imposed under one authority is not comparable with a rate imposed under another, even where the percentage is identical.

Where the Rate Stands Now

Section 301 does not produce a single rate. It proceeds case by case, and the resulting rates accumulate.

  • Case 1 — Forced labor: Determined, producing the 12.5 percent rate now in force.
  • Case 2 — Structural excess capacity: Pending, no determination has been issued.

The Department of Foreign Trade (“DFT”) expects the two cases together to result in a combined rate of no more than 19 to 20 percent. With Case 1 at 12.5 percent, this implies approximately 6.5 percent from Case 2.

It is at this point that the two figures of 19 percent must be kept distinct. The 19 percent applied before February 2026 was a single reciprocal tariff imposed under IEEPA and no longer exists. A figure of 19 percent today refers to the two Section 301 cases taken together, under an entirely different statute. The same number denotes a different measure.

What Was Agreed on 1 September

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce met the USTR and the Deputy USTR in Washington, D.C. on 1 September 2026, following four days of technical negotiation conducted by Thailand’s representatives.

The parties agreed on the substance of the ART, and the negotiating teams on both sides were directed to finalize the remaining technical details. The ART addresses non-tariff barriers, digital trade, and commercial opportunities. The United States indicated that the rate arising from the pending Section 301 excess capacity investigation would be set at a fair and competitive level.

Why the ART Does Not Settle the Rate

The Ministry of Commerce (“MOC”) confirmed on 7 September 2026 that agreement on the substance of the ART does not fix the final tariff rate, because the Section 301 excess capacity investigation remains under consideration.

Two distinct instruments are involved:

  • The ART is a bilateral agreement between Thailand and the United States.
  • A Section 301 determination is a unilateral United States administrative process.

Concluding the former does not conclude the latter.

The two meet at a single point. The USTR set the Case 1 rate at 10 percent for economies that already prohibit imports of goods made with forced labor, that operate a partial regime having that effect, or that have committed through an ART to impose and enforce such a prohibition. Thailand satisfies none of these conditions and therefore remains at 12.5 percent.

What lowers the rate is the forced labor commitment that an ART carries, not the ART itself. An agreement without such a commitment would not qualify, and an agreement containing one would still leave Case 2 open.

What Remains Outstanding

Three matters remain unresolved.

  • The Case 2 determination has not been issued, and no date has been announced. Until it is, the rate applicable to Thai goods is not fixed.
  • The technical annexes to the ART have not been finalized, and the agreement has not been signed.
  • The commercial terms of the ART have not been published. Commitments on imports of United States goods will bear on Thailand’s trade and current account balances.

Key Takeaways

  • The tariff applicable to Thai goods has been replaced three times since 2025, moving from 36 percent and then 19 percent under IEEPA, to 10 percent under Section 122, to 12.5 percent under Section 301 to date.
  • Rates imposed under different statutes are not comparable, even where the percentage is identical.
  • Section 301 rates accumulate across cases. Case 1 (forced labor) produced the current 12.5 percent. Case 2 (excess capacity) is pending.
  • A combined figure of 19 to 20 percent refers to both Section 301 cases together, and not to the former IEEPA rate of 19 percent.
  • Agreement on the substance of the ART was reached on 1 September 2026. Technical details remain outstanding and the ART is not signed.
  • An ART containing a forced labor undertaking would move Case 1 from 12.5 percent to 10 percent, but would not determine Case 2. Thailand remains at 12.5 percent, and the MOC confirmed on 7 September 2026 that the final rate awaits that determination.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

BOT Framework for Safeguarding the Financial Sector from Illicit Activities: New Supervisory Expectations for Financial Institutions and Payment Providers

The Bank of Thailand (BOT), together with financial institutions and regulated financial service providers, has formally launched the Framework for Safeguarding the Financial Sector from Illicit Activities, a sector-wide initiative intended to prevent the financial system from being used to facilitate technology-enabled crime, corruption, money laundering, fraud, and other illicit activities. The Framework represents a significant supervisory development for banks, payment service providers, e-money operators, foreign exchange businesses, and non-bank lenders. While the Framework itself is principally a cooperation and policy framework rather than a standalone regulation imposing penalties, the BOT has expressly indicated that it will strengthen regulations, minimum standards, and supervisory oversight to promote consistent implementation across the financial sector. Accordingly, regulated entities should view the Framework not merely as a statement of policy, but as an indication of the direction in which future supervisory expectations and regulatory requirements are likely to develop.

Five Core Principles:

The Framework is built around five principles that participating institutions are expected to apply in a manner appropriate to their business models and risk profiles. First, preventing misuse of the financial sector should form part of leadership and corporate governance, with boards and senior management responsible for establishing policies, strategic direction, oversight arrangements, and adequate resources. Second, institutions should translate those commitments into effective standards and execution, including appropriate minimum standards for monitoring, detection, and risk response, with periodic review as risks evolve. Third, institutions are expected to develop expertise and data-driven capabilities, using data, technology, and specialized knowledge to improve monitoring and detection. Fourth, the Framework emphasizes collaboration and collective intelligence, including exchanges of information, intelligence, fraud typologies, risk indicators, and best practices among financial institutions, government authorities, private-sector organizations, and other relevant stakeholders, subject to applicable legal frameworks. Finally, preventive measures should pursue balanced objectives, taking into account financial inclusion, fair competition, innovation, customer convenience, and the need to avoid unnecessary burdens on legitimate users.

From Policy Framework to Operational Controls:

The significance of the Framework becomes clearer when the commitments of the BOT and participating industry groups are considered. The BOT intends to strengthen KYC, Customer Due Diligence (CDD), and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) standards, including end-to-end controls against mule accounts. It also plans to strengthen Know Your Merchant (KYM) requirements and oversight of high-risk merchants, particularly in payment acceptance services. Other areas identified for enhanced controls include high-value cash transactions, conversion of illicit proceeds into assets that are more difficult to trace, digital financial service security, and standards applicable to non-bank operators.

Financial institutions and industry associations have correspondingly committed to stronger customer identification and due diligence, greater scrutiny of high-risk accounts and cash transactions, and increased use of data and technology to identify unusual transactions and behavioral patterns. Banks are expected to integrate internal information with trusted external sources and use customer profiles, behavioral information, and transaction inflow/outflow patterns to identify links among accounts and suspicious activity. Payment service providers are expected to strengthen KYM throughout the merchant lifecycle, including enhanced merchant screening and behavioral monitoring, while non-bank lenders are expected to strengthen their assessment of customers, related parties, transactions, and sources of funds. The Framework also contemplates databases of high-risk persons and merchants, links with the Central Fraud Registry, and development of industry-wide AML/CFT operational guidelines.

Data Sharing Becomes a Central Compliance Issue:

One of the most consequential elements of the Framework is its emphasis on information sharing. The BOT intends to analyze linkages and share risk patterns, behavioral indicators, and information concerning individuals, legal entities, and merchants identified as high risk. It also envisages greater data exchange and collaborative analytics involving regulatory authorities, law enforcement agencies, and other government bodies. Financial institutions and payment providers will likewise be expected to contribute relevant information, including unusual transaction patterns, merchant information, fraud intelligence, and other indicators that may assist in identifying misuse of the financial system.

This creates an important intersection between financial-crime prevention and personal data protection. The Framework expressly recognizes that information exchange must occur within applicable legal frameworks. Consequently, an expectation or request to share information for fraud prevention purposes should not automatically be treated as removing the need for analysis under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). Institutions should identify an appropriate lawful basis for each relevant processing and disclosure activity, determine whether the data collected and shared are necessary and proportionate to the stated purpose, establish appropriate retention periods, and implement access controls and security safeguards. Data accuracy will be particularly important where information is used to classify a person or merchant as high risk or to restrict access to financial services.

High-Risk and Blacklist Databases Require Particular Attention:

The contemplated development and sharing of high-risk-person and merchant information raises additional governance considerations. A risk indicator used merely to trigger additional review is materially different from a blacklist that automatically results in account restrictions, rejection of onboarding, termination of services, or other adverse consequences. Institutions should therefore consider establishing clear criteria for inclusion and removal, defining the evidentiary threshold required for a high-risk designation, controlling who may submit or amend records, periodically reviewing whether information remains accurate and relevant, and establishing escalation or review procedures where a designation may materially affect a customer.

These issues become more significant as databases are interconnected across institutions or with centralized fraud information systems. Incorrect, outdated, or insufficiently verified information could potentially propagate across the financial sector and affect an individual or business beyond the institution that originally generated the risk indicator. Governance of shared databases should therefore address not only cybersecurity and access management but also data provenance, accuracy, correction procedures, retention, accountability, and the distinction between intelligence suggesting risk and verified findings of unlawful conduct.

What Financial Institutions and Payment Providers Should Do Now

Although detailed minimum standards will continue to develop, regulated entities should consider conducting a readiness assessment against the Framework now rather than waiting for individual implementing measures. This should include reviewing whether board and senior-management oversight adequately covers financial-crime and fraud risks; mapping existing KYC/CDD/EDD and KYM controls against the emerging supervisory direction; assessing high-value cash and unusual-transaction monitoring; reviewing the use of AI, behavioral analytics, and external data sources; and identifying existing or planned information-sharing arrangements with other institutions, industry bodies, regulators, and law-enforcement agencies. Particular attention should be given to the interface between financial-crime controls and the institution’s PDPA, cybersecurity, data governance, outsourcing, and third-party risk frameworks.

Institutions should also document the legal and governance architecture supporting fraud-related data processing before broader industry sharing becomes operational. This may include reviewing privacy notices, records of processing activities, data-sharing agreements or protocols, retention schedules, access matrices, security controls, procedures for correcting inaccurate risk information, and the allocation of responsibilities among compliance, AML, fraud, privacy, cybersecurity, legal, and business teams. Where automated tools or risk-scoring systems are used to identify high-risk customers or transactions, institutions should also consider whether their governance arrangements provide sufficient human oversight and mechanisms to manage false positives and unintended customer impacts.

Key Takeaways:

The Framework marks a shift toward a more coordinated, intelligence-led approach to protecting the financial sector from illicit activities. Although it is not, by itself, a standalone penal regulation, the BOT has expressly signaled further development of regulations, minimum standards, and supervisory oversight, making the Framework an important indicator of future compliance expectations.

For financial institutions, payment providers, and other regulated non-banks, the immediate priorities are to assess existing KYC/CDD/EDD and KYM controls, strengthen technology-based detection and high-risk transaction monitoring, and prepare for substantially greater information sharing across the financial ecosystem. At the same time, fraud prevention and financial-crime objectives must be reconciled with PDPA requirements, cybersecurity controls, proportionality, data accuracy, retention, and appropriate governance of high-risk and blacklist databases.

The next major development to monitor will be the BOT’s issuance or enhancement of minimum standards, regulations, supervisory guidelines, or operational requirements implementing the Framework. Those measures are likely to determine when the Framework moves from a high-level sector commitment to more concrete and enforceable compliance expectations.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Bangkok Blueprint: A New Framework for Protecting the Financial Sector from Illicit Activities

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is moving toward a broader and more coordinated approach to preventing the financial system from being used for fraud and other illicit activities. As part of this initiative, the BOT, together with relevant financial-sector stakeholders, is preparing the Framework on Safeguarding the Financial Sector from Illicit Activities, while the BOT, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank Group are also advancing the Bangkok Blueprint for Fraud-Resilient Financial Services.

Although the final text of the Framework has not yet been separately published in the official materials reviewed for this article, the initiatives signal an important development in financial-sector supervision: fraud prevention and the prevention of illicit financial flows are increasingly being treated as responsibilities extending across the financial ecosystem rather than as matters confined to individual institutions or conventional anti-money laundering controls.

The Bangkok Blueprint:

The Bangkok Blueprint is intended to strengthen the resilience of financial services against fraud and scams in the digital age. The BOT has described the initiative as being developed with the IMF and World Bank Group and as providing a practical reference for strengthening coordinated responses to digital financial fraud.

This direction reflects the changing nature of financial crime. Digitalization has made payments faster and financial services more accessible, but it has also allowed fraud proceeds to move rapidly between accounts, institutions, payment channels, and potentially other asset classes. An effective response therefore increasingly depends on coordination among financial institutions and other participants in the financial ecosystem.

The BOT has already taken measures addressing unauthorized payment fraud and, more recently, authorized push payment fraud. These measures have included controls relating to mule accounts, tracing of fund flows, use of customer behavioral information, risk-based transaction limits, and shared-responsibility principles. The Bangkok Blueprint appears to place these developments within a broader policy framework focused on making financial services more resilient against fraud.

Safeguarding the Financial Sector from Illicit Activities

Alongside the Bangkok Blueprint, the BOT is coordinating the Framework on Safeguarding the Financial Sector from Illicit Activities. According to the BOT’s official announcement, this is intended to be a sector-wide initiative aimed at preventing the financial system from being misused for illegal and fraudulent activities.

The significance of the Framework is its potentially broad institutional reach. The policy direction described publicly extends beyond commercial banks and reflects the need for controls across different points through which illicit funds may enter, move through, or leave the financial system.

Public statements surrounding the initiative indicate an emphasis on strengthening customer due diligence, identifying higher-risk transactions, improving information sharing, and reinforcing anti-money laundering controls. However, until the final Framework is officially published, these matters should not be treated as new binding regulatory requirements merely by reason of the Framework itself.

From Individual Compliance to Ecosystem Responsibility:

The more important development may be the shift in regulatory philosophy. Traditional compliance programs tend to focus on whether an individual institution has properly identified its customer, monitored transactions, reported suspicious activity, and complied with applicable restrictions. Digital fraud demonstrates the limitations of an institution-by-institution approach because funds can move through several accounts and service providers within a very short period.

The emerging approach therefore places greater importance on the ability of institutions to identify suspicious behavior rapidly, connect information from different sources, exchange relevant fraud intelligence, and intervene before illicit funds disappear from the regulated financial system.

For banks and other regulated financial businesses, this could eventually affect the design of onboarding controls, customer risk classification, transaction-monitoring systems, mule-account detection, escalation procedures, information-sharing arrangements, and internal governance. It may also increase expectations that management can demonstrate not merely formal compliance with existing rules, but the effectiveness of controls in preventing the institution’s products and infrastructure from facilitating illicit activity.

What Financial Institutions Should Watch:

The practical significance of the Framework will depend on the final text and any subsequent BOT rules, guidelines, supervisory expectations, or industry commitments implementing it. In particular, financial institutions should monitor whether the initiative results in more specific expectations concerning mule-account identification and management, customer and merchant onboarding, enhanced due diligence for higher-risk customers, transaction monitoring, cross-institution information sharing, rapid restriction or suspension of suspicious transactions, and governance responsibility for financial-crime controls.

Institutions should also consider the interaction between these measures and their existing obligations concerning anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, fraud prevention, consumer protection, and personal data protection. Greater information sharing can improve fraud detection, but institutions will need appropriate legal bases, governance, security measures, access controls, retention policies, and safeguards governing the use and disclosure of customer information.

Key Takeaways:

The Bangkok Blueprint and the Framework on Safeguarding the Financial Sector from Illicit Activities indicate a move toward a more integrated approach to financial crime, linking fraud prevention, illicit-fund detection, customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, and cooperation across the financial ecosystem.

For regulated financial businesses, the key issue will be whether the final Framework remains principally a statement of collective commitment or develops into concrete supervisory expectations. If detailed obligations or commitments are introduced, institutions may need to reassess their customer onboarding, mule-account controls, transaction-monitoring capabilities, information-sharing arrangements, escalation procedures, and governance structures.

Until the final Framework is officially available, however, institutions should distinguish between the BOT’s announced policy direction and legally or regulatory binding requirements. The publication of the final Framework—and any subsequent implementing measures—will therefore be important in determining the immediate compliance impact on banks, payment service providers, non-bank lenders, foreign exchange businesses, and other regulated financial-sector participants.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Social Media Advertising: New Advertiser Verification Requirements Take Effect Soon

A significant compliance deadline is approaching for businesses involved in social media advertising. From 1 November 2026, social media service providers offering paid advertising will be required to verify the identity of advertisers before advertisements are published in Thailand under the Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures for the Prevention of Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2) (the Notification). With the effective date approaching, platforms should now move beyond legal assessment and ensure that their advertiser onboarding, identity verification, payment, and record-retention systems are operationally ready.

Advertiser Verification and Record Retention:

Where an advertisement is published in Thailand through social media and the social media service provider receives payment for the advertising service, whether from the advertiser or another person, the provider must verify the identity of the advertiser before publication. Verification may be conducted using government-issued identification that can be checked against a reliable source, together with a method of establishing the connection between the advertiser and the identification evidence, or through a Digital ID verification and authentication system meeting the applicable standards of the Electronic Transactions Commission. The requirement should therefore not be understood simply as a mandatory “face scan” rule. Importantly, verification generally does not need to be repeated where the advertiser has already been verified within the preceding one year, allowing platforms to maintain verified-advertiser systems rather than conducting a completely new verification exercise for every advertisement.

The Notification also requires platforms to retain prescribed information identifying the advertiser, including relevant identification, corporate and contact information. Where advertising charges are paid by a person other than the advertiser, information concerning the payer must also be retained. This is particularly relevant to advertising agencies, media buyers, corporate groups, and centralized advertising arrangements where the entity funding an advertising campaign may differ from the advertiser or the person operating the advertising account. The required information must generally be retained for at least 90 days after the advertising service ends.

Why the New Requirements Matter:

The Notification should be considered within the broader shared-responsibility framework under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes. Under that framework, social media service providers may be required to participate in responsibility for losses resulting from technology crime unless they can demonstrate compliance with the applicable preventive standards or measures prescribed by the relevant regulator. Advertiser verification is therefore more than an administrative KYC exercise. Platforms should maintain systems and evidence capable of demonstrating that the required verification, information collection, and related preventive measures were properly carried out if fraudulent advertising subsequently results in losses.

Although the principal regulatory obligations fall on social media service providers, the practical impact will extend throughout the advertising ecosystem. Advertising agencies operating accounts for clients may be asked to establish the identity of the underlying advertiser, the legal entity represented, and the person funding the campaign. Foreign advertisers may face additional onboarding requirements involving passports, foreign corporate documents, authorized representatives, and cross-border payment arrangements. Businesses using agencies or regional media-buying structures should therefore review whether their documentation and authorization arrangements will allow platforms to identify the relevant parties without delaying campaigns.

Data Protection and Implementation:

The new regime also has an important PDPA dimension. Identity verification may involve national identification documents, passports, corporate representatives’ information, contact details, and potentially facial images used for verification. Platforms should therefore ensure that the collection and retention of this information complies not only with the Notification but also with the Personal Data Protection Act, including requirements concerning lawful processing, privacy information, security, access controls, and appropriate retention and deletion. A regulatory requirement to collect or retain particular information does not displace the broader obligations applicable to the processing of personal data.

Before the effective date, social media platforms should test the complete advertising workflow rather than simply adding a KYC step. This includes determining when advertising falls within the Notification, establishing appropriate verification methods for individuals and legal entities, recording when an advertiser was last verified, identifying third-party payers, maintaining the required information for the applicable period, and addressing situations involving agencies, foreign advertisers, corporate accounts, authorized representatives, and regional advertising arrangements. Advertisers and agencies should likewise review who is identified as the advertiser for each account, who actually pays the advertising charges, and whether the necessary identification, corporate, and authorization documents will be readily available. The practical deadline is therefore not simply 1 November 2026: businesses should have the necessary systems, procedures, and documentation in place before that date to avoid disruption when the requirements become mandatory.

Key Takeaways:

From 1 November 2026, paid social media advertising published in Thailand will be subject to stronger advertiser-identification requirements. Social media service providers must verify advertisers before publication, subject to the exception for advertisers verified within the preceding year, and retain prescribed identifying information for at least 90 days after the advertising service ends. Information concerning a third-party payer must also be retained where someone other than the advertiser pays for the advertising.

Although the legal obligations principally apply to social media service providers, their operational effects will extend to advertisers, agencies, media buyers, foreign businesses, and businesses using centralized payment arrangements. Most importantly, the requirements should not be treated merely as another KYC exercise: within the broader technology-crime liability framework, platforms should be able to demonstrate compliance with the required verification and preventive measures. Businesses participating in the social media advertising ecosystem should therefore review their verification, payment, record-retention, and data-protection processes now rather than waiting until the requirements become mandatory.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Revises Visa Exemption Scheme: 30-Day Stay and Revised List of Eligible Countries

1. Introduction

The Ministry of Interior has issued notification revising Thailand’s visa exemption arrangements for foreign nationals. The revised measures repeal the special 60-day visa exemption scheme introduced in July 2024 and establish an updated list of countries and territories whose passport or travel-document holders may enter the Kingdom without a visa for tourism purposes, for a period not exceeding 30 days.

The notifications were signed on 26 August 2026 and published in the Royal Gazette on 31 August 2026, and will take effect on 15 September 2026, being 15 days after publication.

2. Background: The Previous 60-Day Visa Exemption Scheme

Under the Ministry of Interior notification dated 15 July 2024, nationals of 93 countries and territories entering Thailand for tourism, work, or short-term business purposes were exempt from visa requirements and permitted to stay for up to 60 days.

3. The Revised 30-Day Visa Exemption Scheme

3.1 Scope

  • The revised notification sets out an updated list of countries and territories eligible for visa-free entry for tourism purposes with the permitted period of stay reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
  • The revised scheme covers 60 countries and territories in total: 59 retained from the previous list, plus the Kyrgyz Republic, which has been newly added.

3.2 Retained Countries and Territories (59)

  • Asia: Bahrain, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Türkiye, and the United Arab Emirates.
  • Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
  • Africa: South Africa.
  • North America: Canada and the United States.
  • Oceania: Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand.

3.3 Amended Countries and Territories Covered by the Revised 15-Day Scheme (2)

  • Africa: Seychelles and Mauritius 

Seychelles is not counted as retained Country and Territory as it never been in the Scheme while the Mauritius was in 30 – Day Scheme.

In addition, the Kyrgyz Republic has been newly added to the revised list as well as Seychelles on the Revised 15 – Day Scheme. 

3.4 Countries and Territories No Longer Covered by the Revised 30-Day Scheme (34)

  • Asia: Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Korea (ROK), Laos, Macao, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
  • Europe: Albania, Andorra, Kosovo, Monaco, Russia, and San Marino.
  • Africa:  Mauritius and Morocco.
  • North, Central America and the Caribbean: Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama,Trinidad and Tobago.
  • South America: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay.
  • Oceania: Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

These countries and territories are no longer covered by the revised 30-day visa exemption scheme. Certain nationals among them are eligible for visa-free entry under separate arrangements.

4. Key Operational Requirements Under the Revised Scheme

4.1 Purpose of Entry

Whereas the previous notification permitted eligible nationals from a broader list of countries to enter Thailand for tourism purposes for up to 60 days, the revised notification limits the privilege to a reduced number of eligible countries and shortens the permitted stay to 30 days.

4.2 Land-Border Entry Limitations

  • Visa-exempt entry through land-border immigration checkpoints for the nationals listed in Item 3.2 is limited to no more than two entries per calendar year, except for nationals of Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, and Singapore, and any other countries as may be further designated by the Ministry of Interior.

5. Effect on Nationals Removed From the Previous Scheme

Once the revised measures take effect, nationals of countries and territories removed from the previous list will no longer be entitled to the former 60-day exemption and also this 30-day exemption. However, some may nonetheless remain eligible for visa-free entry under separate bilateral arrangements. The applicable entry requirements and permitted period of stay therefore depend on the specific legal basis applicable to each foreign national.

  • Required to obtain a visa prior to entry (21 from 34 countries): Albania, Andorra, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kosovo, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Panama, Papua New Guinea, San Marino, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan.
  • Covered under separate bilateral arrangements (11 countries and territories): Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Korea (ROK), Laos, Macao, Mongolia, Russia, Vietnam, and Mauritius continue to be governed by their respective bilateral frameworks. For example, Chinese nationals continue to be eligible for visa-exempt entry under the agreement between Thailand and the People’s Republic of China on mutual visa exemption, allowing a stay of up to 30 days per entry, subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

6. Key Takeaways

  • The permitted period of visa-exempt stay under the general scheme has been reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
  • The number of countries and territories eligible under the general visa exemption has decreased from 93 to 60.
  • Nationals of countries removed from the list will no longer benefit from the former 60-day exemption, however, subject to any separate bilateral or country-specific arrangements.
  • The revised measures take effect on 15 September 2026. Travellers admitted before that date retain the period of stay granted under the rules in force on their date of arrival.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Cabinet Approves Draft Bills Expanding Thai Labor Court Jurisdiction to Criminal Cases, Excluding Human Trafficking

On August 25, 2026, the Cabinet of Thailand (the “Cabinet“) has approved two draft acts, reviewed by the Office of the Council of State and proposed by the Office of the Judiciary:

  1. The Draft Act on the Establishment of Labor Courts and Labor Court Procedure (No. ..), B.E. …. (the “Draft Labor Court Act“); and
  2. The Draft Human Trafficking Procedure Act (No. ..), B.E. …. (the “Draft Human Trafficking Act“).

Background

  • Criminal liability under labor law has distinct characteristics that differ from general criminal liability under the Criminal Code or other statutes. At present, however, the Labor Court’s jurisdiction is limited to labor disputes and does not extend to criminal cases arising under labor-related laws. This limitation is inconsistent with the fundamental principle underlying labor adjudication—namely, that such cases should be heard by judges with specialized knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of labor issues.
  • Under the current system, the civil aspects of a labor case are heard in the Labor Court while the related criminal aspects are heard in other Courts of Justice. This bifurcated process results in the following:
    • It increases the burden on litigants, who must pursue proceedings in two separate courts;
    • It requires judges and litigants to spend additional time re-examining evidence for the criminal proceedings, even though most of the relevant facts already appear in the Labor Court case file; and
    • It creates a risk that judicial discretion in sentencing for criminal labor cases will vary from court to court.
  • The Draft Human Trafficking Act expressly excludes human trafficking cases from the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, even where such cases involve elements of forced labor or services. Because human trafficking offenses are severe, carry substantial penalties, and may be connected to other criminal offenses, the Human Trafficking Procedure Act, B.E. 2559 (2016), is being amended concurrently with the Draft Labor Court Act to prohibit the Labor Court from accepting cases involving charges under the law on the prevention and suppression of human trafficking.

Key Changes

1. Draft Labor Court Act

The Draft Labor Court Act amends the Act on the Establishment of the Labor Court and Labor Procedure, B.E. 2522 (1979), to expand the Labor Court’s jurisdiction to include criminal labor cases. Previously, the Labor Court’s jurisdiction covered labor cases only, expressly excluding criminal matters. The key changes are as follows:

1.1 Expanded criminal jurisdiction The Labor Court will have jurisdiction to try and adjudicate criminal cases involving offenses under the following labor-related laws:

  • The law on homeworkers’ protection;
  • The law on labor protection;
  • The law on labor protection in sea fishery work;
  • The law on employment and job-seeker protection;
  • The law on the management of foreign workers’ employment;
  • The law on social security;
  • The law on occupational safety, health, and working environment;
  • The law on workmen’s compensation;
  • The law on maritime labor;
  • The law on state enterprise labor relations;
  • The law on labor relations; and
  • Other laws as prescribed by Royal Decree.

Cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Family Court remain excluded from the jurisdiction of the Labor Court.

1.2 Joinder of offenses Where a single act constitutes multiple offenses and at least one falls within the Labor Court’s jurisdiction, the Labor Court has authority to try and adjudicate the related offenses as well. Where multiple interconnected acts are involved, the Labor Court may either adjudicate them jointly or transfer the case to a competent court, having primary regard to convenience and the interests of justice.

1.3 Applicable procedure For criminal proceedings before the Labor Court, the Draft Labor Court Act provides that the Criminal Procedure Code, or the law on the establishment of Magistrate Courts and criminal procedure therein, shall apply, as applicable. The Criminal Procedure Code shall likewise apply to proceedings at both the appellate and Supreme Court levels.

1.4 Procedural rule-making authority The Chief Judge of the Central Labor Court has the authority to issue procedural regulations governing criminal proceedings, subject to the approval of the President of the Supreme Court. Such regulations must not conflict with the Criminal Procedure Code or diminish a defendant’s right to a defense below the standard prescribed by law. Where necessary, the Labor Court may also appoint another court of first instance to carry out procedural acts on its behalf, excluding the final adjudication of the dispute.

1.5 Composition of the bench The composition of the judicial panel authorized to try criminal cases shall conform to the law on the Organization of the Courts of Justice.

1.6 Transitional provision Criminal cases pending before the effective date of the Draft Labor Court Act shall remain under the jurisdiction of the original court until final judgment.

2. Draft Human Trafficking Act

The Draft Human Trafficking Act amends the Human Trafficking Procedure Act, B.E. 2559 (2016). Under the current law, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the Central Bankruptcy Court are prohibited from accepting cases involving charges under the law on the prevention and suppression of human trafficking. The Draft Human Trafficking Act adds the Labor Court to this list, thereby also prohibiting the Labor Court from accepting such cases.

Key Takeaways

  • The principal objective of this legislative reform is to allow criminal cases arising under labor law to be brought directly before courts with specialized expertise in labor matters. Under the current framework, the civil and criminal aspects of a labor dispute must be handled separately in different courts. This reform is intended to promote greater continuity in the assessment of the underlying facts and the nuances of the employment relationship, while reducing the procedural burden on litigants.
  • At the same time, these amendments prohibit the Labor Court from hearing human trafficking cases—even those involving forced labor—thereby keeping these high-severity offenses within the jurisdiction of the general criminal courts.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Digital Platform Fees: New Guidance on Transparency and Fairness

Thailand’s regulation of digital platform services is continuing to develop beyond basic registration and disclosure obligations. The Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has issued a new guideline addressing transparency and fairness in the fees charged by digital platform service providers. The guideline is intended to address growing concerns surrounding unpredictable fee structures, hidden costs, frequent changes to charges, and contractual arrangements that make it difficult for businesses using platforms to determine their actual cost of doing business.

The guideline does not impose a statutory cap on platform fees or prescribe particular prices. Instead, it establishes a best-practice framework under which platform operators are encouraged to make their fee structures transparent, understandable, predictable, and fair. Although the guideline is voluntary in nature, it provides an important indication of the regulatory standards that ETDA considers appropriate for the digital platform sector and should therefore be considered when platform operators design or review their terms and conditions and commercial arrangements.

Transparency of Platform Fees:

A central principle of the guideline is that users should be able to understand the total financial burden associated with using a platform.

Platform operators are encouraged to present fee information in a centralized and readily accessible location rather than requiring users to search through multiple pages, policies, or contractual documents. Information should clearly identify the different categories of fees, explain what each fee represents and what service or benefit the user receives in return, and provide sufficient information regarding the basis for calculating the fee.

Where a fee is calculated according to a formula or percentage, practical examples should be provided where appropriate so that users can reasonably estimate the amount they will be required to pay.

This approach is particularly relevant to platforms where the overall cost imposed on merchants or service providers consists of several components. Depending on the business model, these may include commissions, transaction charges, payment-processing fees, advertising expenses, promotional program charges, affiliate fees, logistics charges, or charges for additional platform services.

The regulatory concern is therefore not limited to the headline commission rate. A fee structure may create transparency concerns where individual charges appear understandable in isolation but users cannot readily determine their aggregate cost.

Changes to Fees Should Be Predictable:

The guideline also addresses changes to platform fees. ETDA recommends that platform operators provide users with advance notice of changes, with the guideline contemplating at least 15 days’ prior notice.

This principle is significant for merchants and other business users because frequent or unexpected changes to fees may affect their ability to calculate margins, determine prices, or decide whether continued participation on a platform remains commercially viable.

From a compliance perspective, platform operators should therefore consider establishing an internal change-management process for fee adjustments. Before introducing or increasing a fee, operators should identify the affected users, prepare an understandable explanation of the change, determine how and when notice will be delivered, and maintain appropriate records showing that the required communication has taken place.

The issue should also be considered together with the existing regulatory framework governing changes to the terms and conditions of digital platform services. Fee changes should not be treated merely as an accounting matter where they effectively alter the commercial terms governing the relationship between the platform and its users.

Fairness Is More Than Disclosure:

Transparency alone does not necessarily make a fee fair. The guideline therefore establishes a separate fairness principle.

Among other things, platform operators are encouraged to avoid duplicative charges and to ensure that fees have a reasonable relationship with the relevant costs or value provided. Users should generally not be compelled to purchase ancillary services merely as a practical condition of obtaining the core platform service.

Additional fees should similarly correspond to genuine additional value or services received by users rather than operating as unavoidable charges presented as optional services.

These principles are particularly relevant to platform ecosystems in which merchants may technically be free not to purchase advertising, participate in promotions, use affiliate programs, or acquire other supplementary services, but where the commercial architecture of the platform could make participation practically necessary to remain visible or competitive.

Accordingly, platform operators reviewing compliance should consider the economic substance of their fee arrangements rather than relying exclusively on how a charge is described in the contract.

Relationship With Competition Law:

The guideline also has an important competition-law dimension. In ETDA’s discussion of the new framework, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand emphasized that regulatory scrutiny is not simply concerned with whether a fee is “high” or “low.” Relevant concerns can include whether the pricing structure is reasonable and transparent and whether the operator can explain the basis on which particular fees are determined.

Competition concerns may potentially arise in circumstances involving excessive charges, predatory pricing, or coordinated or parallel pricing behavior unsupported by legitimate cost considerations.

The regulatory approach therefore appears to favor transparency and market discipline rather than direct government determination of platform prices. This distinction is important: the objective of the guideline is not to establish a uniform fee structure across platforms, whose business models and cost structures may differ substantially, but to encourage operators to be able to explain and justify how their charges operate.

What Platform Operators Should Review:

The guideline provides a useful opportunity for platform operators to conduct a broader review of their commercial arrangements with users. In particular, operators should consider whether users can easily identify every material fee applicable to them; whether the purpose and calculation method of each fee are adequately explained; whether optional services are genuinely optional in practice; whether fees for similar services overlap; and whether procedures exist for providing adequate advance notice of fee changes.

Operators should also consider whether their internal records provide a reasonable explanation for the commercial basis of material fees. This may become increasingly important where complaints regarding platform charges raise issues not only under the digital platform regulatory framework but also under consumer-protection or competition laws.

For businesses operating multiple digital services, fee governance may therefore merit treatment as a compliance function rather than simply a commercial pricing decision.

A Broader Direction in Platform Regulation:

The new guideline should also be viewed in the broader context of Thailand’s regulatory framework for digital platform services. The Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses Subject to Prior Notification already establishes obligations intended to improve transparency and fairness in platform operations.

ETDA’s increasing use of detailed guidelines and sector-specific measures indicates a movement toward more substantive expectations concerning how platforms interact with users, rather than regulation being confined to notification requirements.

The fee guideline is formally framed as best practice. Nevertheless, voluntary regulatory guidance can influence market expectations, contractual practices, complaint handling, and the way regulators assess whether platform conduct is transparent and fair. Platform operators should therefore consider the guideline when drafting new fee structures and when reviewing existing terms and conditions.

Key Takeaways:

  • ETDA has introduced a best-practice framework for transparency and fairness in digital platform fees rather than imposing price controls or statutory fee caps.
  • Platform operators are encouraged to consolidate fee information, explain the purpose and calculation of charges, and enable users to understand their overall cost of using the platform.
  • Changes to fees should be communicated in advance, with the guideline recommending at least 15 days’ notice.
  • Fairness requires more than disclosure: duplicative charges, compulsory ancillary services, and fees that do not reasonably correspond to costs or value may raise concerns.
  • Platform fee structures may also have implications under competition and consumer-protection laws.
  • Even though the guideline operates as voluntary guidance, platform operators should consider incorporating its principles into their terms and conditions, pricing governance, and compliance procedures.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles