Tag: Commercial

on by

Thailand New Draft Digital Platform Economy Act

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly altered consumer behavior, leading to a surge in reliance on digital platforms for activities like shopping and food delivery. This shift has played a pivotal role in the rapid growth of the digital economy, both in Thailand and globally. Citizens have become increasingly dependent on these platforms, which offer convenience and ease in daily life. As digital platforms now cover almost every facet of modern existence, the government has recognized the need to regulate these services to ensure economic and social stability, enhance credibility, and mitigate any potential risks to the public at large.

In response to this, Thailand initially enacted the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Business Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022) (“Royal Decree”), which regulates and imposes obligations on digital platform service operators. These operators, such as Shopee or Lazada, manage platforms that connect business users and consumers through data networks to facilitate electronic transactions. However, recognizing the evolving landscape, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (“MDES“) has proposed the Draft Digital Platform Economy Act B.E. …. (the “Draft Bill”), which aims to expand regulation to include a broader range of platform services not covered under the Royal Decree, also known as, digital media services.

The Draft Bill seeks to regulate various digital platform services more comprehensively, promoting fair trade, encouraging self-regulation, and supporting operators in adopting good governance principles. Below are the key aspects of the Draft Bill.

Categorization of Digital Media Services

The Draft Bill defines Digital Media Services as any service provided over a computer network, internet system, or telecommunications network that acts as a medium between the sender and the data receiver. It categorizes these services into three types, each with distinct legal responsibilities for the operators:

  1. Mere Conduit Service: This refers to the provision of electronic data transmission services or access to an electronic communications network. Mere conduit providers are not liable for illegal activities during data transmission, as long as they can prove they neither initiated the data nor altered it in any way.
  2. Caching Service: Caching services involve temporary data storage for faster transmission. Providers are not held responsible for illegal activities, provided they meet the terms for data access and follow standard industry practices.
  3. Hosting Service: Hosting services provide data storage on behalf of users. These providers are only held accountable if they are aware of illegal content stored and fail to take action by either removing or blocking access to it.

General Obligations for Digital Media Services Platform Operators

Under the Draft Bill, platform operators are required to comply with obligations prescribed in Chapter 3 of the Draft Bill, which includes notifying the users of their rights and obligations, as well as the risks associated with using digital media services; providing a complaint resolution channel that responds within 24 hours and reports on the investigation outcome within 60 days; disclosing advertising information, publishing clear terms and conditions, as mandated by the law, and appointing a point of contact to liaise with the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (“ETDA“).

Very Large Online Platform (VLOP)

The Draft Bill introduces the concept of Very Large Online Platforms (“VLOP“). To qualify as a VLOP, a platform must meet one of the following criteria:

  1. A net income (before expenses) of over 1,000 million Baht per year from the provision of services in Thailand.
  2. More than 6 million active users per month.
  3. Poses a high risk to the economic or social security of Thailand, as determined by the ETDA.

VLOPs are subject to additional obligations, such as reporting data to the ETDA, tracking business users’ activities, suspending services for users engaged in serious illegal activities, and submitting annual transparency reports.

Core Platform Services & Gatekeepers

Chapter 5 of the Draft Bill defines core platform services and identifies platform operators that act as “gatekeepers” to other service providers. Core platform services currently include 10 types of digital media services such as online search engines, video-sharing services, cloud computing, and online advertising services, among others. A platform operator may be classified as a gatekeeper if it meets three criteria:

  1. Significant impact on the economy, with annual income (before expenses) exceeding 7 billion Baht.
  2. Serves as a critical gateway for business users to reach end users, with more than 15 million consumer users and 10,000 business users annually.
  3. Has the power to limit competition from other platform service providers, maintaining a dominant position.

Gatekeepers are subject to additional responsibilities, such as ensuring fair treatment of business users, facilitating free communication between consumers and businesses, preventing unfair practices that hinder competition, and more.

ETDA and Digital Platform Economy Committee’s Power to Enforce Data Platform’s Compliance

In order to enforce the Draft Bill effectively, the Draft Bill grants ETDA various powers to enforce compliance, including but not limited to the power to request data from platform operators to assess compliance, power to access and inspect platforms’ computer systems and physical premises if there is reasonable suspicion of illegal activities, the power to impose fines, service suspensions, or even criminal charges for severe violations.

Regulatory Transition

To ensure a smooth transition in the enforcement of this Draft Bill from the existing Royal Decree, the Draft Bill includes a grandfather clause allowing the platform operators who have already submitted notification under the Royal Decree to be deemed to have been notified under this Draft Bill as well. Nonetheless, they are required to update their information to align with the new requirement within 120 days of its enactment. Whilst the Royal Decree shall cease to be effective on the enforcement date of this Draft Bill, the sub-ordinate regulations issued under the Royal Decree shall remain in effect for as long as they do not conflict with the Draft Bill, or the new-subordinate regulation to be issued under the Draft Bill. 

Conclusion

The Draft Bill represents a proactive step toward regulating the rapidly expanding digital economy in Thailand. By establishing clear guidelines for digital platform operators, categorizing services, and introducing additional obligations for large and influential platforms, the Draft Bill aims to foster fair competition, ensure consumer protection, and maintain economic stability. As digital platforms continue to play an integral role in modern society, this legislation will be crucial in balancing innovation with accountability, ensuring that the digital economy can thrive in a secure and sustainable manner. As such, the passage of the Draft Bill will likely have far-reaching implications, not only for platform operators but also for the broader economy and society.

Source: International Business April 2025 : Antea

Read Full Article

on by

The Ripple Effect EP.3: Strategic Trade Shifts – Thailand’s Solar Sector Under U.S. Scrutiny

The U.S. government’s recent tariff policy implementation represents a profound realignment within Southeast Asia’s solar supply chain. On April 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced final anti-dumping and countervailing duties on solar panels and components from Thailand and several neighboring countries. Subject to a 37% Reciprocal Tariff Tax, Thailand’s solar export industry, which depends heavily on the U.S. market, now confronts intensified trade pressures.

This policy shift has dramatically affected Thailand’s solar industry, currently ranked as the fourth-largest global exporter of solar panels. In 2023, according to Trade Policy and Strategy Office’s database, Thailand exported solar panels valued at over 159 billion baht, with more than 75% destined for the U.S. market. The U.S. policy recalibration has disrupted the industry’s structural foundation, creating substantial challenges for local manufacturers reliant on American buyers.

The policy change was precipitated by concerns from U.S. solar manufacturers who suspect Thailand could function as an indirect manufacturing hub for China, enabling Chinese products to circumvent U.S. tariffs. In recent years, production has increasingly migrated from China to Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Cambodia, where solar panels are frequently exported at prices below production costs, with many manufacturers benefiting from subsidies provided by China. This shift has significantly undermined U.S. solar manufacturers’ competitive position.

Based on these concerns, the U.S. initiated a comprehensive investigation in 2024, culminating in the imposition of final tariffs substantially higher than initially projected. Some Thai solar companies now face tariffs approaching 1,000%, effectively eliminating their price competitiveness. Meanwhile, countries exempt from these tariffs, including India, Laos, and South Korea, have capitalized on this opportunity to expand their market presence.

aerial photo of cargo ship near intermodal containers

Conclusion

While the current situation presents significant challenges, it simultaneously offers a critical opportunity for Thailand to strengthen its domestic clean energy industry, reduce export dependency, and enhance long-term energy security. With its abundant solar energy potential, Thailand is well-positioned to develop robust technological and manufacturing capabilities. By doing so, the country could establish itself as a regional leader in the energy sector in the coming years.

Although the U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures pose a substantial threat to Thailand’s solar panel industry, the final outcome remains undetermined. The U.S. International Trade Commission is scheduled to decide on June 2, 2025 whether these tariffs will be permanently implemented while negotiation on those tariff and non-tariff measures will also be under consideration.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Public-Private Partnership Act B.E. 2562 (2019): Proposed Amendments

The State Enterprise Policy Office (SEPO), responsible for evaluating the Public-Private Partnership Act, B.E. 2562 (2019), is conducting a public hearing to assess its effectiveness and gather stakeholder feedback for proposed amendments. This aligns with the Law Drafting and Evaluation Act B.E. 2562 (2019), and guidelines set by the Law Development Committee, endorsed by the Cabinet. The goal is to ensure the Act meets its objectives, aligns with international standards, reduces regulatory overlaps, promotes fairness, and boosts Thailand’s competitiveness.

Purpose of the Act:

The Act establishes a clear state policy for infrastructure and public service development through public-private partnerships (PPPs), aiming to:

  • Foster transparent, accountable partnerships.
  • Address delays and obstacles in PPP projects.
  • Leverage private sector expertise and innovation while transferring knowledge to the public sector.
  • Ensure fiscal discipline with streamlined, verifiable processes.

Key Measures of the Act:

The Act outlines measures to achieve its goals:

General Provisions

  • Projects align with national PPP plans, promote fiscal discipline, and prioritize public benefits (Section 6).
  • Covers state investments in infrastructure/services with private participation via concessions or permits (Sections 4, 7).
  • Projects under 5 billion baht follow simplified procedures (Section 9).
  • Mechanisms resolve delays or regulatory issues (Section 11).

PPP Plan Development

  • A national PPP plan aligns with infrastructure and social development master plans (Section 12).

PPP Policy Committee

  • Oversees policy, approves plans, and resolves issues (Section 20).
low angle photography of building

Project Implementation

  • Proposals: Agencies submit detailed feasibility studies (Section 22).
  • Incentives: Include investment benefits and land leases up to 50 years (Section 23).
  • Private Sector Selection: Involves bidding, contract drafting, and Cabinet approval (Sections 36, 38, 41, 42).
  • Oversight: A supervisory committee monitors progress (Sections 43, 44).
  • Contract Amendments: Require justification and approvals (Sections 46–48).
  • Post-Contract: Agencies plan continuity five years before contract expiry (Section 49).

Public Interest Measures

  • Agencies may intervene in projects for public safety or national security, with compensation if private partners are not at fault (Section 50).

PPP Promotion Fund

  • Supports consultancy, training, and administration (Sections 51–59).

Miscellaneous

  • Contracts are submitted to ministries and SEPO, with project data publicly accessible online (Section 60).

Public Benefits:

The Act drives efficient infrastructure and public service development, enhancing quality of life, and national competitiveness, and leveraging private expertise under transparent partnerships.

Proposed Amendments

The amendments aim to significantly enhance the Act’s effectiveness by:

Promoting Innovation: Supporting new partnership models to incorporate advanced technologies and business approaches, fostering adaptability to future needs.

Streamlining Processes: Simplifying procedures to boost efficiency and flexibility, reducing bureaucratic delays.

Prioritizing Strategic Projects: Aligning PPPs with national development goals to maximize public impact.

Optimizing Risk Management: Establishing fairer risk-sharing frameworks between public and private sectors.

Enhancing Transparency: Introducing stricter guidelines for project approval, contract management, and performance monitoring to ensure accountability.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

PDPA: Administrative Fine

The Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) of Thailand, enforced from June 1, 2022, has reshaped the data protection landscape by mandating strict compliance standards for organizations. One of the key enforcement tools available under the PDPA is the imposition of administrative fines for non-compliance.

Following the issuance of the Royal Gazette Notification in April 2025, the procedures for administrative fines are now clearly outlined. Below is a comprehensive overview of the administrative fine system and process.

Scope of Administrative Fines:

Administrative fines apply to:

  • Data Controllers who fail to comply with lawful processing, security standards, or respect for data subject rights.
  • Data Processors who act beyond instructions or fail to maintain required security standards.
  • Representatives acting on behalf of overseas controllers or processors carrying out activities in Thailand.

Violations triggering fines include:

  • Unlawful data processing without valid consent or legal basis.
  • Inadequate responses to data subject rights.
  • Failure to report data breaches promptly.
  • Unauthorized data sharing or cross-border data transfers.
  • Absence of proper organizational security measures.

Authorities Empowered to Act:

The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) and its designated investigating officers have the authority to:

  • Conduct investigations.
  • Summon witnesses and request evidence.
  • Recommend fines for PDPC approval.
  • Issue administrative orders enforceable under administrative law.
close up shot of a typewriter

PDPA Administrative Fine Process:

The administrative fine process is clearly structured into the following key stages:

1. Preliminary Investigation

An investigating officer gathers evidence, interviews involved parties, and assesses whether there are grounds for a violation. If sufficient evidence exists, the officer proceeds with the next step.

2. Notice of Allegations

The alleged violator receives a formal notification, detailing:

  • The alleged facts.
  • Applicable legal provisions breached.
  • The right to submit a defense or clarifications within a stipulated period.

3. Consideration and Decision

The competent authority reviews all evidence, defenses, and mitigating factors. The seriousness of the violation, damages, prior conduct, and cooperation are taken into account when determining the fine amount.

4. Issuance of Administrative Order

An administrative order is issued specifying:

  • The nature of the violation.
  • The amount of the fine imposed.
  • Payment instructions and deadlines.

Failure to comply may result in further legal enforcement actions.

5. Right to Appeal

The fined party may appeal the administrative order in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996).

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

The Ripple Effect EP.2: Thailand Caught in the Middle as U.S. Trade Talks Postponed

As the United States (U.S.) imposes a retaliatory import tariff of 37% on Thai goods, Thailand faces significant economic repercussions. In response, the Thai government has developed comprehensive short-term and long-term strategies, focusing on five key negotiation frameworks to present to the U.S.

Thailand-U.S. Economic Negotiations Postponed

The Thai government has been actively preparing for trade talks with the United States Trade Representative (USTR), initially scheduled for April 23, 2025. However, Thailand’s Prime Minister subsequently announced the postponement of these negotiations to an unspecified date, citing the need to monitor the evolving situation and reassess the proposed terms. In these forthcoming discussions, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will represent Thailand, aiming to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome for both nations.

Despite the 90-day delay proposed by the U.S., Thailand continues to face substantial uncertainty. As the U.S. represents Thailand’s largest export market, with annual exports valued at USD 54 billion, the importance of the American market to Thailand’s economy cannot be overstated. This underscores the urgency of successful negotiations aimed at reducing trade barriers.

The Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP) has warned that approximately 3,700 Thai small and medium enterprises (SMEs), representing an export value of around USD 7.634 billion annually, will likely be impacted by these trade tariffs. In response, the Export-Import Bank of Thailand has implemented five key support measures:

  1. Financial advisory services
  2. Debt restructuring and repayment extensions
  3. Liquidity support
  4. Interest rate reductions
  5. Strategic guidance for market diversification

Additionally, the bank provides mechanisms for non-payment risk protection and promotes Thai investment opportunities in the U.S.

close up of human hand

Economic Pressures: Thailand’s Balancing Action

China ranked as Thailand’s second-largest foreign investor last year with investments exceeding THB 170 billion, according to the Board of Investment (BOI) database. This economic reality places Thailand in a precarious position. While the U.S. remains a crucial export destination, China’s significant role as a major investor, particularly in the manufacturing sector, creates complex diplomatic challenges. Ongoing U.S. tariffs continue to burden Thai exports, while China’s assertive approach to protecting its interests further complicates Thailand’s strategic position.

Although, Thailand has maintained neutrality in the ongoing trade conflict, it continues to experience economic fallout from this global dispute. Any concessions made during negotiations with Washington that might undermine Beijing’s interests could trigger retaliatory actions, as China has previously indicated.

Looking Forward

Thailand now navigates an increasingly complex economic landscape amid continuing trade tensions between global powers. The postponement of U.S. trade negotiations, with no new date established, allows Thai officials to reassess their strategy while monitoring international developments.

The economic impact on thousands of Thai SMEs remains a significant concern for policymakers. Despite Thailand’s carefully maintained neutrality, the country remains vulnerable to broader consequences of this trade dispute. Moving forward, Thailand’s ability to balance these competing interests while protecting its economic sovereignty will be crucial to its long-term prosperity and regional standing.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Computer Crime and Telephone Scams: Advancing Legal Frameworks with the Second Royal Decree

Introduction:

Following the implementation of the amended Royal Decree on the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in February 2024, as detailed in our previous article Computer Crime and Telephone Scams: Strengthening Legal Frameworks to Combat Cyber Fraud. Thailand has further strengthened its defenses against cybercrime and telephone scams. The Second Royal Decree, which was published earlier, officially took effect on April 13, 2025. This decree builds on the initial framework’s successes while addressing remaining challenges. With daily financial losses now averaging 50–60 million baht, down from 60–70 million baht in early 2024, the need to adapt to evolving cyber threats remains urgent. The new decree introduces enhanced measures to close loopholes, strengthen enforcement, and deepen international cooperation, ensuring a more resilient digital ecosystem for Thai citizens.

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has continued its proactive role, collaborating with public and private stakeholders to refine compliance mechanisms and ensure accountability across sectors. The Second Royal Decree responds to emerging trends, such as the rise of AI-driven scams, decentralized fraud networks, solicit calls impersonating officials, and the misuse of digital assets, while reinforcing victim protections and stakeholder responsibilities.

Key Provisions of the Second Royal Decree:

  1. AI and Deepfake Regulations: The decree introduces specific measures to combat AI-generated scams, including deepfake voice and video fraud. Platforms hosting such content must deploy detection tools and face penalties for non-compliance.
  2. Real-Time Monitoring of Transactions: Financial institutions are now required to implement real-time monitoring systems to flag suspicious transactions instantly, preventing funds from leaving victim accounts before scams are detected.
  3. Expanded SIM Card Accountability: Telecom providers must verify SIM card ownership more stringently and suspend services linked to scam networks within hours of detection. Additionally, SMS messages containing suspicious links will be blocked to curb phishing attempts.
  4. Victim Compensation Fund: A centralized fund, supported by contributions from financial institutions and telecoms, will streamline refunds for victims, reducing delays and ensuring fair compensation.
  5. Social Media Accountability: Social media platforms must remove fraudulent content within 24 hours of notification and share data with authorities to track scam origins.
  6. Strengthened Extraterritorial Enforcement: The decree enhances mechanisms for pursuing overseas offenders by establishing dedicated cybercrime task forces with international law enforcement agencies, such as AOC 1441, to combat cross-border fraud.
  7. Public Awareness Mandates: Financial institutions and telecoms must fund and distribute public education campaigns to inform citizens about scam tactics, including solicit calls impersonating officials, and prevention methods. The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society has launched initiatives to warn citizens about these scams, emphasizing the importance of vigilance.
  8. Know Your Customer (KYC) Enhancements for Digital Assets: The decree aligns with industry standards by mandating stricter KYC protocols for opening bank accounts, digital wallets, and other financial services, with a particular focus on digital assets. This measure aims to prevent the creation of mule accounts often used in the trade of digital assets. As of April 2025, the Thai SEC reports that over 200,000 digital wallets linked to fraudulent digital asset transactions have been blacklisted, a significant step in curbing the misuse of these financial tools.
  9. Inter-Agency Collaboration: The decree fosters cooperation between agencies like the Thai SEC and other authorities to share information, track scams, and blacklist offenders, ensuring a unified approach to cybercrime prevention. The Thai SEC has been actively involved in identifying solicit calls and fraudulent schemes, particularly those involving digital assets, working closely with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.
  10. Protection Against Solicit Calls: The decree specifically addresses solicit calls impersonating officials, a growing threat highlighted by the Thai SEC. Citizens are warned not to engage with unsolicited calls requesting personal information or payments, especially those related to digital asset investments, and authorities are cracking down on such scams through targeted investigations and public alerts.
woman wearing earpiece using white laptop computer

Impact on Stakeholders:

The Second Royal Decree places greater demands on financial institutions, telecom providers, and social media platforms to invest in advanced technologies and compliance systems. Banks must upgrade fraud detection algorithms and adhere to stricter KYC standards, particularly for digital asset transactions, while telecoms are required to enhance SIM verification processes and block suspicious SMS links. Social media platforms face increased scrutiny to curb misinformation and fraudulent ads, including soliciting calls impersonating officials and scams promoting fake digital asset investments. For citizens, the decree promises faster refunds and better protections but underscores the need for ongoing vigilance against sophisticated scams like AI-driven fraud, impersonation tactics, and fraudulent digital asset schemes.

The BOT’s continued oversight ensures that stakeholders align with these regulations, with non-compliance leading to substantial fines and reputational risks. The blacklisting of over 200,000 digital wallets linked to digital asset fraud as of April 2025, as reported by the Thai SEC, marks a significant step toward fraud prevention, particularly for vulnerable populations targeted by scammers. Additionally, the Thai SEC’s warnings about soliciting calls impersonating officials, especially those related to digital assets, have heightened public awareness, encouraging citizens to verify the legitimacy of communications before sharing sensitive information or investing in digital assets.

Global Collaboration:

Recognizing the borderless nature of cybercrime, the Second Royal Decree strengthens Thailand’s partnerships with global entities like INTERPOL, ASEAN cybersecurity networks, and AOC 1441. These collaborations focus on sharing intelligence, tracking cross-border mule accounts, and extraditing offenders, with a particular emphasis on scams involving digital assets. The decree’s extraterritorial provisions empower Thai authorities to target scam hubs in neighboring countries, ensuring no safe haven for perpetrators. The Thai SEC’s involvement in international efforts further enhances these collaborations, particularly in addressing solicit calls and other cross-border scams related to digital assets.

Effective Date:

The Second Royal Decree took effect on April 13, 2025, following its earlier publication in the Royal Gazette. The government has allocated a 60-day transition period for stakeholders to align with the new requirements, with full enforcement expected by June 13, 2025.

Conclusion:

The Second Royal Decree, effective as of April 13, 2025, marks a pivotal advancement in Thailand’s fight against cybercrime and telephone scams. By addressing emerging threats like AI-driven fraud, solicit calls impersonating officials, and the misuse of digital assets, while reinforcing accountability across sectors, the government demonstrates its commitment to safeguarding citizens’ financial security. The BOT’s leadership, inter-agency collaboration with entities like the Thai SEC, and global partnerships further bolster these efforts, creating a robust framework to tackle both domestic and international cyber threats. For more details on the initial framework, refer to our previous article Computer Crime and Telephone Scams: Strengthening Legal Frameworks to Combat Cyber Fraud. However, sustained success will require cooperation from all stakeholders—banks, telecoms, platforms, and citizens—to stay ahead of increasingly sophisticated criminals.

Key Takeaways:

Swift Implementation: Full enforcement of the second Royal Decree is expected by June 13, 2025.

Proactive Evolution: The Second Royal Decree, effective on April 13, 2025, targets new threats like AI-driven scams, solicit calls impersonating officials, and digital asset fraud, ensuring Thailand’s laws keep pace with technological advancements.

Enhanced Protections: Real-time monitoring, SMS link blocking, and a victim compensation fund prioritize rapid response and fair recovery for scam victims.

Stakeholder Accountability: Stricter KYC mandates for digital assets, blacklisting of 200,000 digital wallets as of April 2025, and shared responsibility among banks, telecoms, and platforms strengthen fraud prevention.

Global Reach: Strengthened international cooperation with entities like AOC 1441 and the Thai SEC targets cross-border scam networks, including those involving digital assets.

Public Empowerment: Mandatory awareness campaigns, supported by the Thai SEC and the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, equip citizens with tools to recognize and avoid scams, including impersonation tactics and digital asset fraud.

Related Article: Computer Crime and Telephone Scams: Strengthening Legal Frameworks to Combat Cyber Fraud – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

The Ripple Effect: How Trump’s ‘America First’ Tariffs Impact Thai Trade

Under the “America First” and “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs” framework announced on April 3, 2025, the United States has implemented a minimum import tariff of 10% on goods originating from all countries. Additionally, an escalating tariff system will be applied to nations that maintain a bilateral trade surplus with the United States and those are identified as engaging in unfair trade practices. These practices include, but are not limited to, import duties, non-tariff barriers, and various regulatory fees. The tariff rate imposed on such countries will be calculated as 50% of the effective tariff rate that the U.S. goods face when entering their markets.

Thailand is poised to experience significant economic consequences as the United States imposes a retaliatory import tariff of 37% on Thai goods, effective April 9, 2025. However, after the measure was in force for only a few hours, the president ordered a temporary halt and postponed the enforcement for a 90-day period. This substantial tariff, one of the highest in the region, is a direct result of Thailand’s considerable trade surplus with the U.S., which exceeds $40 billion out of more than $60 billion in exports, providing Thailand with a 70% trade advantage. Consequently, major Thai exports to the U.S., including mobile phones, electronics, vehicle tires, and semiconductors, are expected to encounter substantial challenges.

The measures have precipitated financial market instability, resulting in a decline in the valuations of risk assets across equity and currency markets in the affected emerging economies. Conversely, safe-haven assets such as gold have experienced increased demand and price appreciation. The Thai Baht has depreciated by 0.28%, while the yield on Thai government bonds has decreased by approximately 5 basis points, currently standing at 1.89% for the 10-year maturity. Furthermore, Thailand’s sovereign credit risk, as reflected by Credit Default Swaps, has exhibited a slight increase. Notably, the overall movement in Thai asset prices corresponds with broader market trends observed throughout the region.

In response, the Thai government has developed comprehensive short-term and long-term strategies, with a primary emphasis on proposing negotiation frameworks to the United States. These 5 frameworks aim to address trade imbalances through:

view of shipping containers
  1. Increase Imports of U.S. Goods: Focus on increasing the importation of essential goods from the U.S. that meet domestic needs in Thailand, including agricultural products such as corn, soybeans, and pork offal, as well as energy products like natural gas.
  2. Reduce or Eliminate Tariffs: Propose the reduction or elimination of import tariffs on over 100 goods from the U.S. In addition, review and lower tariffs on goods imported from the U.S. that are subject to high tariff rates, while also increasing import quotas where applicable.
  3. Eliminate Non-Tariff Barriers: Remove non-tariff barriers to facilitate smoother and more efficient trade between Thailand and the U.S., ensuring a more open trade environment.
  4. Address Misrepresentation of Thai-Origin Goods: Take measures to address issues regarding the misrepresentation of Thai-origin goods being exported to the U.S., ensuring compliance with U.S. origin labeling and trade regulations.
  5. Explore U.S. Investment Opportunities: Consider exploring investment opportunities in the U.S. market, particularly in sectors such as natural gas transport infrastructure in Alaska and agricultural product processing. This would promote bilateral investment and foster economic collaboration.

The overarching objective of these measures is to help narrow the bilateral trade surplus without curtailing Thailand’s exports to the United State.

The government’s primary goal is to strengthen Thailand’s capacity to import essential goods that support its production and export sectors, with relevant agencies assigned to oversee detailed implementation. Furthermore, to address non-tariff barriers, the Thai government will undertake initiatives to streamline regulations and reduce import duties on products identified by the United States as trade impediments.

Conclusion

The significant retaliatory tariff measures implemented by the United States under the “America First” and “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs” policies, effective as of April 9, 2025 (Although, the president has currently ordered a temporary halt, the enforcement of the measures has been postponed for a 90-day period), are having a pronounced impact on Thailand. The introduction of a substantial 37 percent import tariff—driven by the U.S. response to Thailand’s trade surplus—presents major pricing challenges for a wide range of Thai exports to the U.S. market and contributes to heightened financial market volatility. In response, the Thai government has formulated a comprehensive strategy comprising both short-term and long-term countermeasures. These include active negotiations and structural adjustments to its trade framework, aimed at mitigating adverse effects and preserving economic stability. Continued monitoring of developments and policy updates is recommended to remain informed on Thailand’s evolving approach and the broader international trade landscape.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

PDPA: Handling Personal Data of Third-Party Representatives in Contractual Communications

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (PDPA) regulates how companies, say Company K, which provides building management and outsourcing services, manage personal data. The Subcommittee under the Personal Data Protection Committee has clarified Company K’s obligations regarding consent and lawful bases for data processing in two scenarios: business transactions with representatives and property management services. This analysis details the facts, the subcommittee’s rulings, and the compliance implications.

Factual Background:

Company K operates in building administration and outsourcing, requiring the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. It raised two issues: (1) When dealing with natural persons or entities, it coordinates with employees or agents, collecting their names, phone numbers, and other personal data – does it need their consent? Given Section 24(3)’s contractual exemption applies only to direct parties? (2) When managing condominiums/villages, either as the legal manager or an outsourced administrator, it handles residents’ data for billing, security, parking stickers, registries, and services—must it obtain consent, or does an exemption apply?

Subcommittee Decisions:

The subcommittee provided rulings on both issues:

  1. Data of Representatives in Business Transactions
    • Case 1: Natural Person as Counterparty: When Company K contracts with an individual (e.g., for goods and services), it can collect their data under PDPA Section 24(3)—necessary for contract performance or pre-contractual steps—without consent. This includes names and contact details for coordination, as the individual is a direct party.
    • Case 2: Representatives of Entities: When coordinating with employees/agents of a legal entity counterparty, these individuals are not parties to the contract, so Section 24(3) does not apply. Instead, Company K can use Section 24(5)—legitimate interests—if the data collection (e.g., names, phone numbers for quotes and documents) is necessary, outweighs data subject rights, and respects reasonable expectations in business contexts. Caution is required to minimize impact and avoid excessive use. For sensitive data under Section 26 (e.g., health and criminal records), additional lawful bases from Section 26 are needed. Consent is not mandatory if these conditions are met.
  2. Data of Residents in Property Management
    • Whether Company K manages a condominium/village as the legal entity (registered under condominium or land allocation laws) or as an outsourced administrator, it processes residents’ data (e.g., for billing, security and parking) under instructions from the condominium/village legal entity. Here, Company K is not a “data controller” (Section 6)—an entity deciding data use—but a “data processor” (Section 40), acting on behalf of the controller (the legal entity). The controller must secure a lawful basis under Sections 24 or 26 (e.g., contract and legal duty), not Company K. As a processor, Company K does not need residents’ consent or a direct lawful basis; it follows the controller’s lawful instructions (Section 40(1)). The controller must establish a data processing agreement per Section 40, paragraph 3, ensuring compliance.
close up of a smart phone with a lock

Implications for Compliance:

Company K can avoid consent in business dealings by leveraging contractual (Section 24(3)) or legitimate interest (Section 24(5)) bases, tailoring its approach to the counterparty’s status, with extra care for sensitive data. In property management, its processor role shifts responsibility to the legal entity, requiring clear agreements to define duties and ensure lawful data handling. This dual framework simplifies Company K’s compliance while upholding PDPA standards.

Key Takeaways:

  • Contractual Base for Direct Parties: Section 24(3) exempts consent for natural person counterparties, covering pre and post-contract data.
  • Legitimate Interest for Agents: Section 24(5) supports collecting representatives’ data without consent, if necessary and balanced, with Section 26 for sensitive data.
  • Processor Role in Management: As a processor, Company K does not need consent or a direct basis; the controller (legal entity) bears that duty.
  • Agreements Are Key: Section 40 mandates controller and processor agreement to align outsourced data handling with PDPA.

This ruling enables Company K to streamline operations under PDPA, distinguishing its roles and leveraging exemptions effectively.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand : Transfer Pricing

1. Overview of Transfer  Pricing Regulations in ThailandTransfer pricing in Thailand is governed by
1. Thai Revenue Code
2. Ministerial Regulation  No. 369 (B.E. 2563) (2020) Issued under the Thai Revenue Code Regarding the Adjustment of Income and Expenses of Related Companies or Partnership
3. Ministerial Regulation No. 370 (B.E. 2563) (2020) Issued under the Thai Revenue Code Regarding the Revenue Threshold of Companies or Juristic Partnerships According to Section 71 ter paragraph 3
2. Whether aligned with BEPS?Yes, Thailand participates the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.
3. Scope and Applicability of Transfer Pricing RegulationsCompany or Jursitic Partnership (for juristic partnership, it includes limited partnership and registered ordinary partnership)
1. who proceeds a transaction with its related companies or juristic partnerships under Transfer Pricing Regulations (please see below the definition as specified in Item 5.); and
2. Such company or juristic partnership has revenue of more than 200 million THB; and
3. Subjects to disclose information regarding its related companies or juristic partnerships and their transactions by submitting a Disclosure Form to the Thai Revenue Department
4. Transactions Covered:Commercial or financial terms, agreements, or contracts involving sales, services, marketing, advertising, loans, financial assistance, or other commercial or finance transactions, both verbally and in writing.
5. Legal Definition of Related companies or juristic partnerships Under Transfer Pricing RegulationsTwo entities or more are considered as related companies or juristic partnerships if any of the following conditions are met:
1. An entity, either directly or indirectly, holds shares or partnership (contribution) with not less than 50% of the total shares or partnership (contribution) of another entity; or
2. A shareholder or partner of an entity holds shares or partnership (contribution) at 50% or more of its total shares or partnership (contribution) and such shareholder or partner holds shares or partnership (contribution) at 50% or more of the total shares or partnership (contribution) in another entity; or
3. An entity that has a capital, management, or control relationship with another entity and either of them cannot operate independently.
6. Recognized Transfer Pricing MethodsThailand applies six methods:
1. Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method
2. Resale Price Method
3. Cost Plus Method
4. Transactional Net Margin Method
5. Transactional Profit Split Method
6. Other Methods subject to notification to the Director General of the Thai Revenue Department
7. Data Used for comparison
to improve the company or juristic partnership’s incomes and expenses.		The tax assessor will use these data to assess the company or juristic partnership’s incomes and expenses;
Internal Data
1. Prioritize using internal data from transactions that occurred between the related companies or juristic partnerships with other third-party companies or juristic partnerships
External Data
2. If internal data is unavailable, external data from transactions of other third-party companies or juristic partnerships shall be used, regardless of whether the transactions are conducted in Thailand or outside and by incorporated entities under Thai or foreign laws
8. Transfer Pricing Audit Process and PenaltiesTransfer Pricing Audit Process
Documentation Review – Disclosure Form (Master Files) and Local Files which were requested by the tax assessor to be used for analysis.
1. Contractual Term of the Transaction
2. Functional Analysis : FAR
3. Characteristic of Property & Service
4. Economic Circumstances
5. Business Strategy
Remarks:
– Local Files refer to the documents or evidence used to analyze the contractual terms of the transactions
– All documentations must be submitted in Thai language
The Tax Assessor Examination – The tax assessor verifies Arm’s Length Price (ALP).
Adjustments – If pricing is incorrect, taxable income is adjusted.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
ViolationPenalty
Failure to file a Disclosure Form, providing a false declaration, or providing insufficient informationA fine not more than 200,000 THB
9. Reporting Deadlines and Compliance Timelines1. Disclosure Form: Within 150 days from the last day of the fiscal year by electronic filling or by hand-in submission
2. Local Files: The Revenue Department can request local files within 5 years from the Disclosure Form filing date, and the Local Files must be submitted within 180 days of receiving the first notification or 60 days of receiving subsequent notifications by the Thai Revenue Department

Source: International Comparison March 2025 : Antea

Read Full Article

on by

PDPA: Personal Data in Medical Certificates Defined by the Medical Council

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), effective June 1, 2023, governs the handling of personal data, including sensitive health information, with exemptions for medical purposes. The Subcommittee under the Personal Data Protection Committee has addressed the Medical Council’s inquiry about its standardized medical certificate forms, balancing professional standards with privacy compliance. This analysis outlines the facts, the subcommittee’s rulings, and the compliance implications.

Factual Background:

The Medical Council, established under the Medical Profession Act B.E. 2525 (1982), regulates medical practice standards per Section 7, including two medical certificate forms: (1) a health check certificate (2561/2018 version) and (2) a driver’s license certificate (2564/2021 version). Each form has two parts: Part 1, completed by the patient (e.g., name, address, congenital diseases), and Part 2, completed by the doctor. Part 1 ensures accurate health history for first-time patients without prior records. The council seeks clarification on PDPA compliance for patient self-reported sensitive data, third-party disclosure by patients, and form improvements.

close up photo of a stethoscope

Subcommittee Decisions:

The subcommittee ruled on three issues:

  1. Patient Self-Reported Sensitive Data in Part 1
    • Healthcare facilities, as data controllers, collect health data (e.g., congenital diseases) under PDPA, Section 26(5)(a), exempt from consent when necessary for legal duties (e.g., Medical Profession Act B.E. 2525 (1982)), preventive medicine, occupational health, diagnosis, treatment, or healthcare system management. Alternatively, Section 24(3) applies for patient-doctor contractual obligations, or Section 26(5)(a) for professional confidentiality. The council’s forms—requiring patients to input and sign off on personal data like name, address, and health history—fit these exemptions. Collection is lawful if limited to what’s necessary for the certificate’s purpose (e.g., epilepsy history for driving safety, per transport regulations). For new patients lacking records, self-reporting ensures accuracy, avoiding misleading certificates. Thus, this aligns with PDPA, Sections 24 and 26, provided data is purpose-specific and proportionate, per Section 22.
  2. Disclosure to Third Parties by Data Subjects
    • The National Health Act B.E. 2550 (2019), Section 7, deems health data confidential, barring disclosure that harms the individual unless consented or legally mandated. PDPA Section 26 and Section 27(1) echo this, prohibiting controllers from disclosing health data without explicit consent, except under exemptions. However, neither law restricts data subjects (patients) from sharing their own data. PDPA Section 30 grants data subjects access to their data, implying freedom to disclose it (e.g., to employers, and authorities). Thus, patients can share their certificates with third parties without PDPA or National Health Act violations, as this is their prerogative, not the controller’s action.
  3. Recommendations for Certificate Forms
    • Health data’s sensitivity (potentially impacting rights and freedoms) requires recipients (e.g., employers, and agencies) to secure it per PDPA, Section 37. The subcommittee suggests the council add guidance on forms or issue best practices for certificate use, ensuring third parties handle data appropriately and align with collection purposes. This enhances compliance without altering the forms’ structure, maintaining their professional utility.

Implications for Compliance:

The council’s forms comply with PDPA by leveraging medical exemptions, requiring only necessary data, and allowing patient disclosure flexibility. Healthcare facilities must ensure purpose-driven collection, while third-party recipients bear security duties. Adding guidance strengthens the ecosystem, aligning professional standards with privacy protections.

Key Takeaways:

  • Exemptions Enable Self-Reporting: Patient data in Part 1 is lawful under Section 26(5)(a) or Section 24(3) for medical purposes, no consent is needed if necessary (Section 22).
  • Patient Disclosure Is Unrestricted: Patients can share certificates freely per Section 30, unbound by PDPA or National Health Act restrictions on controllers.
  • Guidance Enhances Security: Adding recommendations ensures third-party compliance with Section 37, safeguarding sensitive data.
  • Necessity Rules Collection: Data must match certificate purposes (e.g., driving safety), balancing medical needs with privacy.

This ruling affirms the council’s approach, integrating PDPA exemptions with medical practice while suggesting proactive steps to protect data downstream.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles