Tag: Business

on by

Revised Digital Government Standard Updates Public Sector Data Governance Framework

The Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) continues to advance digital transformation across the public sector by releasing an updated framework for data governance. This revision strengthens structured, ethical, secure, and interoperable data management practices, serving as a vital foundation for efficient public services, evidence-based policymaking, and trusted collaboration between government and the private sector.

The Announcement of the Digital Government Development Committee on Digital Government Standards Regarding the Public Sector Data Governance Framework (Revised Edition: Practical Guidelines) (Mor Dor. 6 : 2566), commonly referred to as DGF V.2.0, replaces the earlier version and introduces significantly more actionable implementation support for government agencies.

Background and Purpose of the Revision:

The update is grounded in the Digital Government Administration and Services Act B.E. 2562 (2019), which requires public agencies to adopt sound data governance practices. While the original framework (V.1.0) focused primarily on establishing theoretical foundations, the 2023 revision (Mor Dor. 6 : 2566) retains core principles while substantially expanding practical guidance based on implementation experience and agency feedback.

The revised standard is designed for a wide audience — ranging from non-IT personnel and field operators to policymakers, data analysts, and senior executives. Its main objectives include:

  • Improving data quality, security, accessibility, and usability
  • Facilitating seamless data integration and sharing across agencies
  • Advancing open government data initiatives
  • Enabling advanced analytics and data-driven decision making
  • Building public confidence through transparent, accountable, and privacy-respecting data practices

Notable enhancements include clearer definitions of key terms (such as “government agency,” “public sector data governance,” “data strategy,” “data owner,” and “data agent”), refined data classification categories (public, internal, personal, official secret, and national security data), and the addition of practical implementation tools, readiness assessments, maturity models, and real-world case studies.

Core Components of the Revised Framework:

The standard takes a comprehensive lifecycle approach to data management — from collection, processing, and storage to sharing, archiving, and disposal. It is structured in two main sections:

  1. Theoretical Foundations — Core principles of lawfulness, transparency, accountability, data quality, security, privacy protection (fully aligned with the Personal Data Protection Act — PDPA), interoperability, ethical use, and stewardship. These principles have been clarified and made more accessible.
  2. Practical Guidelines — Newly expanded content offering step-by-step implementation support, including:
    • Establishing effective data governance structures and committees
    • Defining clear roles and responsibilities (data owners, custodians, stewards, and processors)
    • Developing agency-specific data strategies, policies, and procedures
    • Metadata management, data cataloguing, and data quality control
    • Readiness assessment and progressive maturity evaluation
    • Auditing, monitoring, compliance mechanisms, and risk management
    • Practical case studies and solutions to common implementation challenges

The framework promotes integration with national platforms such as the Government Data Exchange (GDX) and the Government Data Catalog (GD Catalog), enhancing discoverability and secure data sharing.

Alignment with National Digital Infrastructure and Investment Goals:

This data governance update supports the government’s broader strategy to upgrade critical infrastructure and attract high-value investments in future-oriented industries. Recent policy announcements emphasize strengthening digital foundations alongside clean energy development to support sectors such as data centers, semiconductors, electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, smart cities, and other high-technology industries.

Robust public sector data governance provides the essential trust layer required for secure public-private partnerships, large-scale digital projects, and the responsible use of data in analytics and AI applications.

Key Takeaways for Businesses and Investors:

  • Elevated Compliance Standards: Government agencies are expected to enforce stricter requirements on data security, privacy, quality, and interoperability in all interactions, procurement processes, and partnerships.
  • New Business Opportunities: Rising demand for data governance platforms, training services, metadata tools, analytics solutions, compliance consulting, and implementation support services.
  • Smoother Collaboration: Enhanced interoperability reduces friction in government procurement, licensing, reporting, data-sharing agreements, and joint digital projects.
  • Risk Reduction: Companies that align with the new public sector benchmarks can better manage compliance risks, especially in regulated industries such as financial services, healthcare, telecommunications, and energy.
  • Innovation Enablement: Improved availability and governance of public data open new avenues for developing value-added services, open data applications, and AI-driven solutions.
  • Strategic Positioning: Early alignment with these standards strengthens competitiveness when bidding for government contracts and participating in Thailand’s expanding digital economy ecosystem.

Outlook and Recommendations:

The public sector data governance landscape continues to evolve rapidly. The DGA is expected to roll out additional supporting tools, training programs, and related standards on open data and data cataloguing.

Businesses should consider the following actions:

Explore partnership opportunities in supporting digital government transformation projects.

Benchmark internal data governance practices against the revised public sector framework, particularly when handling government data or participating in public-private initiatives.

Monitor the publication of agency-level data strategies and any forthcoming implementation guidelines.

Engage with DGA resources, workshops, and capability-building programs.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

The 2026 Special 301 Report: Modernizing Thailand’s IP Framework Amid Ongoing Challenges

Introduction

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has released its 2026 Special 301 Report (“Report”), an annual assessment of the global state of intellectual property (“IP”) protection and enforcement among United States trading partners. The Report examines systemic issues ranging from counterfeit goods and online piracy to trade secret protection and concerns regarding forced technology transfer.

For the tenth consecutive year, Thailand remains designated on the Watch List. While the USTR commends Thailand’s legislative progress and specific enforcement successes, the Report underscores persistent systemic vulnerabilities that continue to prevent Thailand’s elevation to a more favorable designation.

Legislative Modernization and Systemic Evolution

The USTR formally acknowledged Thailand’s sustained commitment to harmonizing its domestic laws with international standards. Central to this recognition are the ongoing efforts to amend the Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994). These reforms represent more than mere administrative updates; they serve as the foundational infrastructure for Thailand’s planned accession to the following major international treaties:

  • The Hague Agreement — Streamlining the international registration of industrial designs.
  • The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) — Enhancing digital-era protections for performers and producers.

This Trade Plus policy, championed by the Department of Intellectual Property (“DIP”) under the Ministry of Commerce, signals a strategic intent to foster a transparent, innovation-friendly environment aimed at attracting high-value foreign investment.

Enforcement Successes and the Deterrence Gap

Operational coordination among Thai law enforcement agencies, including the Royal Thai Police and Customs authorities, has yielded notable enforcement successes. The USTR highlighted the successful dismantling of major Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) piracy networks, as well as targeted interventions in notorious physical markets.

A landmark development was recorded at the MBK Center, where authorities moved beyond mere seizures to enforce the termination of lease agreements with tenants found to be engaged in IP violations. This approach signals a meaningful shift in enforcement strategy.

Notwithstanding these achievements, the Report identifies a significant deterrence gap. U.S. stakeholders have expressed concern that enforcement actions continue to focus disproportionately on end-of-line retail operators rather than on upstream manufacturers and large-scale distribution networks. This reactive approach is considered insufficient to permanently disrupt the supply chains of counterfeit goods.

Persistent Challenges

Despite Thailand’s legislative progress, the 2026 assessment identifies several areas of continued concern:

·       The Digital Frontier

Online platforms and illicit streaming applications remain the primary vectors for IP infringement. The USTR noted that, while physical markets in tourist areas have become comparatively cleaner, the volume of pirated content available through digital channels has returned to pre-enforcement levels. Further concerns relate to the protracted length of criminal proceedings and the relative inadequacy of penalties imposed by the judiciary.

·       Pharmaceutical Patent Backlogs

A significant point of friction is the substantial backlog in patent examinations, particularly in the agricultural and pharmaceutical sectors. The United States continues to urge Thailand to provide effective protection against the unfair commercial use and unauthorized disclosure of undisclosed test data for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products.

·       Judicial and Regulatory Frameworks

Stakeholders have identified low civil damages as a primary impediment to effective deterrence. In addition, the USTR remains cautious regarding Thailand’s geographical indication (GI) framework, particularly in the context of ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union, which could affect United States market access.

Conclusion

Thailand’s continued designation on the Watch List reflects consistent, if incremental, progress rather than a failure to engage. The transition to the Clear List will require Thailand to move decisively from legislative drafting to deterrent-level enforcement.

For the legal community and rights holders, attention now turns to two critical questions: first, how the Thai judiciary will manage the rising volume of digital piracy cases; and second, whether the DIP can successfully clear the pharmaceutical patent backlog to meet the rigorous expectations of Thailand’s primary trading partners.

The path forward demands a coordinated and sustained response targeting the upstream sources of infringement, strengthening judicial deterrence, and delivering on the legislative commitments that Thailand has already undertaken.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

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

Background: What is Happening in Thailand Now:

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

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

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

Why the Regulator Needs to Regulate:

The OCPB identified several risks justifying regulatory intervention:

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

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

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

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

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

What the Regulation Is:

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

Three Key Requirements:

A. Prior Authorization

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

B. Accurate Representation

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

C. Mandatory AI Disclosure Labels

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

Approved Disclosure Label When to Use

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

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

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

“Image created by AI” Fully AI-generated images

“Video created by AI” Fully AI-generated videos

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

Separate Rule – Non-Edible Products Resembling Food Items

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

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

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

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

What Businesses Need to Do Now:

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

Step 1: Audit Current Advertising Content

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

Step 2: Verify Accuracy of Depictions

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

Step 3: Add Mandatory Disclosures

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

Step 4: Update Internal Workflows

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

Step 5: Review Contracts with Agencies and Suppliers

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

Step 6: Train Marketing Teams

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

Step 7: Establish Ongoing Monitoring

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

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

Introduction

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

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

Key Amendments

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

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

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

2. FX Purchases for Gold Import Payments

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

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

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

3. Timing for Submission of Supporting Documents

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

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

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

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

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

4. FX Transactions for Hedging Based on Forecast Exposure

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

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

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

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

5. Sale of Foreign Currency by Residents

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

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

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

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

Key Principles and Implementation Framework

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

1. Verification Procedure

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

2. Enforcement

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

3. Revocation

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

Conclusion

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s DBD Launches Public Hearing to Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999)

The Department of Business Development (“DBD”), under the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand, is currently conducting a nationwide public hearing from 30 March to 30 April 2026 (the “Public Hearing”) to evaluate the effectiveness and practical implications of the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (the “FBA”) in the current economic context. The FBA, which serves as the cornerstone of Thailand’s legal framework governing foreign participation in business activities, seeks to balance the protection of Thai business operators with the promotion of foreign investment. It not only regulates market access but also ensures that foreign participation contributes to the Thai economy through job creation, technology and knowledge transfer, and an expanded range of goods and services.

The Public Hearing aims to assess whether key aspects of the current legal framework — including the definition of “foreigner,” business classifications, licensing requirements, and enforcement mechanisms — remain appropriate in today’s evolving economic environment. It also reflects the government’s commitment to keeping the law aligned with changing business practices and international obligations. Feedback gathered through this process will inform targeted amendments intended to improve legal clarity, close existing loopholes, strengthen enforcement, and streamline regulatory procedures, ultimately establishing a more balanced and effective framework that protects Thai interests while remaining conducive to foreign investment.

Scope of the Public Hearing to Assess and Revise the FBA

The Public Hearing conducted by the DBD is designed to gather stakeholder feedback on key provisions of the FBA in order to assess their effectiveness and practical suitability. The feedback collected will assist the DBD in determining whether the FBA and its subsidiary regulations function as intended, and in identifying areas where adjustments may be required to enhance clarity, compliance, and enforcement. The matters under consideration include the following:

1. Definition of “Foreigner” (Section 4): Whether the current definition provides sufficient clarity and consistency, particularly in the context of complex shareholding structures.

2. Business Classification (Section 8): The continued categorisation of business activities into three lists:

  • List 1: Business activities strictly prohibited to foreigners, covering sensitive sectors that affect Thai livelihoods.
  • List 2: Business activities affecting national security, cultural heritage, or natural resources, which require Cabinet approval.
  • List 3: Business activities in sectors where Thai operators are not yet sufficiently competitive, which require DBD approval.

3. Regulatory Framework for the Foreign Business Certificate (“FBC”) (Sections 10–12): Whether the procedures for obtaining an FBC are practical and consistent with Thai law, international treaties, and special circumstances such as those applicable to foreign-born individuals residing in Thailand.

4. Approval Criteria: Whether the requirements imposed on applicants — including legal status, absence of prohibitions, and financial standing — effectively serve the objectives of national security, economic development, and public order.

5. Compliance Requirements: Whether obligations relating to the display of licenses, reporting of material changes, and applications for replacement licenses are clear and operationally feasible for businesses.

6. Minimum Capital and Capital Injection: Whether current thresholds and timelines for capital investment remain appropriate for business operations across the different classification categories.

7. Enforcement and Penalties: The effectiveness of administrative fines and court-based penalties, including measures to address unauthorized operations and nominee arrangements.

Authorizations under the Current FBA

According to DBD data updated as of March 2026, the majority of approvals under the FBA are concentrated in Foreign Business Licenses (“FBL”) for service businesses classified under List 3. This category accounts for the highest number of approved FBLs, with figures approximately double those of the next most common category — representative offices, which was also used to classified under List 3 of the FBA (currently the representative offices category is exempted from obtaining the FBL).

By contrast, the highest number of Foreign Business Certificates (FBCs) are issued to legal and accounting service firms. These certificates are primarily obtained under the Treaty of Amity between Thailand and the United States, which grants American companies national treatment in Thailand and exempts them from many of the restrictions otherwise imposed by the FBA.

Summary and Outlook

The ongoing Public Hearing presents an important opportunity for Thailand to review and modernize the FBA. Through this process, the DBD has identified several key areas for reform, including clarifying the definition of “foreigner,” updating enforcement and penalty provisions, standardizing licensing, and registration procedures, and addressing mechanisms to prevent legal circumvention. These reforms are aimed at closing existing legal gaps and improving regulatory clarity, thereby creating a framework that effectively protects Thai business interests while remaining supportive of foreign investment.

Under the FBA, violations may result in imprisonment, fines, or both, depending on the severity of the offence and judicial discretion. To reduce the burden on the courts, Section 42 of the FBA empowers the DBD’s Director-General to impose settlement fines for certain categories of offences, enabling cases to be resolved administratively upon payment of the applicable penalties under the Criminal Code. This approach underscores the need to strengthen enforcement mechanisms while maintaining the efficiency of administrative processes.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Trade Competition: Multi-Sided Platforms

Overview

The rapid expansion of the digital economy—particularly in e-commerce and multi-sided platform businesses—has significantly reshaped market structures and competitive dynamics. Multi-sided platforms operate as intermediaries connecting multiple groups of users, including sellers, consumers, logistics providers, payment channels, and advertisers. While such platforms generate economic efficiencies and drive innovation, they also introduce heightened risks under competition law.

To ensure the effective enforcement of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) in the digital context, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT”) has issued the Guidelines on the Assessment of Monopolistic Conduct, Reduction or Restriction of Competition, and Unfair Trade Practices in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses, Digital Services, and E-Commerce Businesses (published in the Royal Gazette on 24 March 2026). These Guidelines establish a regulatory framework for evaluating platform conduct in light of evolving digital market realities.

1. Monopoly and Reduction of Competition

The Guidelines recognize the structural characteristics inherent to multi-sided platforms, particularly the presence of network effects, whereby growth on one side of the platform increases value on the other sides. This dynamic can lead to market concentration, create significant barriers to entry, and foster dependency on a limited number of dominant platforms.

In assessing whether a platform holds dominant market power, the TCCT does not rely solely on price-based indicators. Additional factors considered include:

  • Control over data and algorithms;
  • The ability to determine or influence commercial terms;
  • The degree of user dependency on the platform.

Conduct that may constitute monopolization or a reduction or restriction of competition includes predatory pricing, excessive pricing, exclusionary contractual conditions, refusal to deal, and exclusive arrangements that prevent users or business partners from engaging with competing platforms.

2. Unfair Trade Practices

Even where a platform does not qualify as a dominant operator, certain conduct may still constitute an unfair trade practice—particularly where a significant imbalance of bargaining power exists between the platform and its business users, such as small- and medium-sized sellers.

The Guidelines identify the following conduct as potentially unfair:

  • The imposition of rate parity clauses restricting sellers from offering lower prices on other platforms;
  • Charging excessive or discriminatory commission fees, advertising fees, logistics fees, or other service charges;
  • Unilateral modification of contractual terms;
  • Discriminatory product ranking, visibility reduction, or self-preferencing of the platform’s own products or affiliated businesses;
  • Arbitrary suspension or removal of seller accounts without fair and transparent procedures.

Such conduct may distort competitive conditions and undermine fairness in digital markets, even where it does not rise to the level of monopolistic abuse.

3. Multi-Sided Platform Considerations

The Guidelines underscore that multi-sided platforms differ fundamentally from traditional businesses, as they operate across multiple interdependent markets—including those for sellers, consumers, advertisers, logistics providers, and payment services.

Accordingly, the assessment of platform conduct requires an analysis of overall competitive effects across all sides of the platform, rather than a single-market approach. Particular attention is given to data-driven practices, including the use of third-party data (data leveraging), algorithm-based decision-making, ranking systems, and platform design features that may materially affect competition.

Key Takeaways

Regulators assess competitive effects across all sides of the platform, with particular focus on the use of data, algorithms, and self-preferencing practices.

Multi-sided platforms are subject to heightened competition law scrutiny due to network effects, data control, and user dependency.

Market power may exist even in the absence of direct fees, requiring assessment beyond traditional price-based indicators.

Monopolistic and exclusionary conduct—such as predatory pricing, exclusivity arrangements, or refusal to deal—may constitute a reduction or restriction of competition.

Unfair trade practices can arise independently of dominance, particularly where there is a significant imbalance of bargaining power between platforms and business users.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

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

Overview

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

Thailand’s Recent Developments

1. Acceleration of Free Trade Agreement Negotiations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Fast-Tracking Investment in Thailand: How BOI’s “Fast Pass” Is Unlocking Growth

Introduction

Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) is recalibrating its investment promotion strategy in response to mounting global uncertainty. Heightened geopolitical tensions — particularly in the Middle East — are accelerating supply chain diversification and prompting multinational corporations to reassess their production footprints. Against this backdrop, Thailand is positioning itself as a “Safe and Secure Production Base” and a preferred investment destination within the region.

To address key structural bottlenecks, the BOI has introduced the “Fast Pass” system — an integrated framework designed to expedite approval processes and remove constraints that have historically impeded foreign investment. The initiative strengthens coordination with key regulatory authorities, including the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), and focuses on three priority areas: access to reliable and clean energy, industrial land availability, and workforce readiness.

Concerted action across these pillars is intended to attract high-value industries, including electric vehicles (EVs), semiconductors, digital infrastructure, and renewable energy, while reinforcing Thailand’s standing as a resilient and competitive global manufacturing hub.

Addressing Investment Constraints Through BOI’s Fast Pass

The Fast Pass program is designed to streamline approvals and permitting processes for large-scale investment projects, reflecting Thailand’s ambition to become a “Preferred Regional Investment Destination.” The BOI has identified three strategic priorities: maintaining leadership in the EV sector through comprehensive ecosystem support and localization; accelerating semiconductor industry development to establish a high-technology manufacturing base; and advancing clean energy initiatives alongside the expansion of data center capacity to 2,000 megawatts.

In parallel, the BOI is implementing targeted reforms under the Fast Pass framework to address the three principal constraints facing foreign investors.

1. Electricity and Clean Energy

Rapid industrial expansion in the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) has strained power supply, particularly for high-technology and data center projects. In response, the BOI is working in close coordination with the ERC to accelerate the implementation of both near-term and long-term energy strategies.

Key measures include the pre-confirmation of electricity availability through an optimized “power map” prior to BOI application submission, the facilitation of Direct Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for renewable energy, and the integration of energy management frameworks developed in collaboration with the ERC and EGAT.

2. Land Zoning and Site Development

The availability of industrial land remains a critical enabler of investment; however, regulatory processes related to zoning and the conversion of public land have historically caused significant delays. Under the Fast Pass framework, the BOI is expediting reviews of industrial zones, urban plans, and relevant regulatory guidelines, while promoting the conversion of public land for industrial use within a condensed timeline of approximately one year.

In addition, new regulatory guidelines governing excavation, land reclamation, and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) — effective April 2026 — are expected to streamline site preparation. Broader urban planning reforms are also underway to expand the supply of industrial land and accommodate future large-scale investments.

3. Workforce Development

The BOI has set a target of developing 20,000 skilled personnel in the semiconductor sector within five years. For BOI-promoted projects in advanced industries such as semiconductors and electronics, the Fast Pass framework mandates structured training programs for Thai workers, alongside measures to facilitate the conversion of select work permits into visa arrangements for highly skilled foreign professionals.

These initiatives support Thailand’s broader policy objectives across emerging sectors — including medical and wellness industries — while enhancing national resilience in the areas of food security, energy security, supply chain continuity, and human capital development.

To date, Fast Pass projects with a combined investment value exceeding USD 5 billion have received BOI promotion approvals, with several projects already completed and others under active monitoring. By addressing these structural constraints, the BOI is reinforcing four key pillars of national stability — food security, clean energy and electricity, supply chain resilience (spanning industries such as hard disk drives and circuit boards), and human capital — to attract risk-averse multinational investors seeking long-term certainty.

Key Takeaways for Investors

Thailand’s BOI is moving beyond conventional tax incentives to focus on resolving the real operational challenges investors encounter — a shift that makes projects easier to implement and more predictable over the long term.

1. More Coordinated and Practical Problem-Solving

The BOI is adopting a more integrated approach by simultaneously addressing critical issues such as energy supply, land availability, and workforce readiness. This coordinated strategy reduces uncertainty and enables investors to plan and execute projects with greater confidence from inception through to completion.

2. A Faster and Smoother Investment Process Through “Fast Pass”

The Fast Pass system accelerates approvals and removes major bottlenecks — particularly for large-scale projects in priority sectors such as electric vehicles, semiconductors, clean energy, and data centers.

3. A Stronger and More Resilient Manufacturing Base

Ongoing reforms in energy security, supply chain management, and workforce development are consolidating Thailand’s position as a stable, sustainable, and future-ready manufacturing hub.

Conclusion

Thailand’s BOI “Fast Pass” framework represents a meaningful strategic shift — from a purely incentive-driven model to an execution-focused approach that directly tackles key structural constraints. By streamlining regulatory processes and enhancing coordination among relevant authorities, Thailand is materially improving the ease of doing business for large-scale, high-value investments.

Through targeted reforms in energy access, land development, and workforce readiness, the Fast Pass system not only accelerates project delivery but also strengthens long-term operational certainty. These developments carry particular significance amid ongoing global supply chain realignment and elevated geopolitical risk.

In this environment, Thailand is emerging as a strategically positioned and increasingly compelling investment destination. Early engagement with the BOI — particularly regarding its Fast Pass pipeline and priority sectors — may offer investors a meaningful first-mover advantage as the country cements its role as a resilient, future-ready manufacturing hub in Southeast Asia.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand FDA — Proposed Food Labelling Rules for Prepackaged Foods

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

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

Key Proposed Amendment

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

1.  Revision of Exemptions from Labelling Requirements

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

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

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

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

2.  Enhancement of Allergen Labelling Requirements

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

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

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

3.  Revision of Food Additive Labelling Requirements

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

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

  • carriers; and
  • packaging gases.

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

4.  Introduction of Digital Labelling

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

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

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

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

Current Status

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

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

Key Takeaway

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

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles