Tag: E-Commerce

on by

Class-Action Signal Raises the Stakes for Online Consumer Complaints

Background:

Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has announced that it is developing a national action plan to strengthen consumer protection for products sold through online channels. The initiative is intended to improve coordination among government agencies responsible for digital commerce, online marketplaces, direct-selling businesses, and consumer protection, while establishing clearer responsibilities and performance indicators.

Although the proposed action plan itself does not introduce new legal obligations, one aspect deserves particular attention from businesses. The OCPB has been directed to study the broader use of class-action proceedings where large numbers of consumers suffer substantially similar losses.

Thailand already recognizes class actions under the Civil Procedure Code, but they have historically been used relatively infrequently. The latest policy initiative indicates that consumer regulators are considering greater reliance on collective litigation as an enforcement mechanism where systemic consumer harm is identified, particularly in the rapidly expanding digital marketplace.

Why this matters:

The announcement does not create a new statutory cause of action or impose additional regulatory requirements on online platforms. However, it signals a possible shift in enforcement priorities.

Traditionally, consumer complaints have often been addressed individually through customer service channels or administrative dispute resolution. A greater emphasis on class actions would instead encourage regulators and claimants to examine recurring patterns of similar complaints across multiple consumers.

This approach could significantly increase litigation exposure where businesses fail to identify or address systemic issues affecting multiple customers.

Practical implications for businesses:

Online marketplaces, e-commerce operators, social-commerce platforms, direct-marketing businesses, manufacturers, importers, brand owners, payment providers, logistics companies, and merchants should consider strengthening internal governance before any formal policy changes occur.

Particular attention should be given to:

  • identifying recurring complaints involving the same product, seller, advertisement, or defect;
  • maintaining reliable seller identification and beneficial ownership information;
  • preserving documentation relating to product origin, regulatory approvals, and compliance certifications;
  • implementing effective notice-and-takedown procedures for unlawful or unsafe products;
  • escalating recurring safety or quality issues through documented internal processes;
  • reviewing refund, replacement, recall, and remediation procedures;
  • preserving evidence, including listings, livestreams, advertisements, customer communications, payment records, and delivery information; and
  • reviewing merchant agreements to ensure appropriate cooperation, indemnification, and information-sharing obligations.

Repeated complaints that appear insignificant when viewed individually may later be relied upon collectively to establish knowledge of defects, inadequate remediation, misleading advertising, or broader compliance failures.

Intellectual property considerations:

The proposed enforcement direction is also relevant for intellectual property owners.

Counterfeit and unauthorized products frequently give rise to overlapping legal issues extending beyond trademark or copyright infringement. A single product listing may simultaneously involve misleading advertising, product safety concerns, inaccurate labeling, warranty issues, and consumer protection violations.

Accordingly, brand owners should avoid treating online enforcement as solely an intellectual property exercise. Internal coordination between IP, consumer protection, product compliance, marketplace enforcement, and litigation teams will become increasingly important where multiple consumer complaints concern the same products or sellers.

Data privacy considerations:

Any increase in collective consumer litigation is likely to require broader preservation and analysis of personal data.

Businesses may need to process information relating to customers, merchants, payment transactions, logistics providers, communications, complaint histories, and digital evidence. Such processing should continue to comply with Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act.

Organizations should therefore review:

  • legal bases supporting evidence preservation and regulatory disclosures;
  • access controls for complaint and investigation datasets;
  • secure information-sharing procedures with regulators and external advisers;
  • contractual obligations imposed on processors, including marketplaces, call centers, logistics providers, and cloud service providers;
  • document retention policies and litigation-hold procedures; and
  • incident response plans addressing potential personal data breaches involving consolidated claimant information.

Importantly, the prospect of consumer enforcement should not be interpreted as permitting unrestricted disclosure of customer or merchant data. Any disclosure should remain subject to applicable legal authority, proportionality, security safeguards, and appropriate documentation.

Looking ahead:

The OCPB’s announcement remains a policy initiative rather than a binding regulatory change. Nevertheless, it provides an early indication that consumer enforcement may increasingly focus on systemic patterns of misconduct affecting multiple consumers rather than isolated disputes.

Businesses that rely on digital sales channels should therefore begin assessing whether existing compliance, complaint-handling, and evidence-preservation processes would adequately support regulatory investigations or collective litigation involving large groups of consumers.

Key takeaways:

  • Organizations should ensure that complaint investigations and evidence preservation continue to comply with Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act, particularly where large volumes of personal data are involved.
  • The OCPB is considering greater use of class-action proceedings for widespread consumer harm arising from online commerce.
  • No new legal obligations have been introduced, but the initiative signals a potentially significant shift in enforcement priorities.
  • Businesses should strengthen systems for identifying recurring complaints and preserving evidence relating to products, sellers, and customer interactions.
  • Online platforms and brand owners should integrate consumer protection, product compliance, and intellectual property enforcement rather than treating them as separate functions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner

Other Articles

on by

OCPB Introduces FastTrack Complaint Handling for Online Purchases: Practical Implications for Digital Businesses

The Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has announced the introduction of OCPB FastTrack, an expedited complaint-handling process designed to assist consumers experiencing problems with online purchases. While the initiative does not introduce new legal obligations or amend existing consumer protection laws, it signals a more proactive enforcement approach and an expectation that online businesses will respond promptly to consumer complaints.

Overview of the FastTrack Process:

According to the OCPB, consumers may use the FastTrack process for common online shopping disputes, including:

  • products that differ from their advertisements;
  • non-delivery of purchased goods; and
  • sellers who fail to respond after payment.

The OCPB has indicated that the process aims to streamline complaint handling through digital coordination with online platforms and businesses, with a target of resolving complaints within 14 days.

To support their complaints, consumers are encouraged to submit evidence such as:

  • the original product advertisement;
  • proof of payment;
  • communications with the seller; and
  • photographs of the goods received.

Although the 14-day target is an administrative objective rather than a legally prescribed response period, it provides insight into the OCPB’s enforcement expectations and its intended speed of intervention.

Practical Implications for Online Businesses:

The FastTrack initiative is likely to increase the pace at which marketplaces, platforms, and merchants receive requests from the OCPB. Businesses should therefore evaluate whether their internal complaint-handling processes can support rapid investigation and response.

In particular, businesses should consider whether they can:

  • promptly identify the relevant seller and transaction;
  • preserve historical versions of product listings and advertisements as they appeared when the purchase was made;
  • retrieve payment, delivery, communications, refund, and complaint records efficiently;
  • identify and investigate repeat-offender sellers;
  • authorize appropriate refunds or other remedies without unnecessary escalation;
  • distinguish disputes involving misleading advertising from those involving counterfeit, defective, or unsafe products; and
  • coordinate responses across the platform, merchant, logistics provider, payment service provider, and customer-service functions.

Businesses should avoid relying solely on current versions of online listings. Product descriptions, images, pricing, and promotional claims may have been modified after a transaction occurred. Maintaining reliable version histories, timestamps, and archived advertising records will be increasingly important when responding to regulatory inquiries or consumer complaints.

Intellectual Property Considerations:

Consumer complaints alleging that products are “not as advertised” may also expose intellectual property issues. These complaints may involve:

  • counterfeit goods;
  • unauthorized use of trademarks;
  • unauthorized use of copyrighted product photographs or marketing materials;
  • substitution of genuine products with non-genuine products;
  • misleading claims regarding authorized distributor or dealer status; or
  • imitation packaging or branding intended to confuse consumers.

For businesses operating brand-protection programs, the FastTrack process highlights the value of integrating consumer complaints with existing intellectual property enforcement mechanisms. Information obtained through customer complaints may assist in identifying repeat infringers, counterfeit supply chains, or fraudulent marketplace accounts that would otherwise remain undetected.

Rather than treating consumer complaints and intellectual property enforcement as separate functions, businesses should consider adopting a coordinated approach involving legal, compliance, trust and safety, and customer-support teams.

Data Privacy Considerations:

Responding to FastTrack complaints may require businesses to collect, review, and disclose information relating to customers, sellers, payment transactions, deliveries, device information, and communications.

Businesses should ensure that their complaint-handling procedures incorporate appropriate data governance measures, including:

  • clearly designated authority to respond to OCPB requests;
  • data minimization practices when preparing evidence packages;
  • secure channels for transmitting information;
  • appropriate access controls for complaint files;
  • contractual safeguards with processors such as call centers, logistics providers, and cloud service providers; and
  • incident-response procedures where complaint files contain personal data.

As complaint investigations become increasingly digital and involve multiple service providers, maintaining a structured and documented approach to personal data handling will help reduce compliance risks while supporting efficient regulatory cooperation.

Looking Ahead:

Although OCPB FastTrack does not create new statutory obligations, it reflects an evolving enforcement environment in which regulators expect faster cooperation from digital businesses. Organizations that rely on online sales channels should view the initiative as an opportunity to review their complaint-handling, record-retention, advertising preservation, brand-protection, and data-governance processes.

Businesses that can quickly reconstruct transactions, preserve historical evidence, coordinate responses across multiple stakeholders, and implement appropriate remedies will be better positioned to manage both regulatory scrutiny and consumer expectations as online commerce enforcement continues to evolve.

Key Takeaways:

  • Strong record-keeping and coordinated internal response processes will help businesses manage regulatory inquiries and consumer disputes more effectively.
  • OCPB FastTrack is an administrative initiative designed to expedite online-purchase complaint handling rather than a new law or regulation.
  • The initiative signals an expectation that platforms and sellers will respond promptly when contacted by the OCPB.
  • Businesses should ensure they can preserve historical product listings, advertisements, communications, payment records, and delivery information.
  • Consumer complaints may reveal broader issues involving counterfeit goods, trademark infringement, misleading advertising, or unauthorized use of copyrighted materials.
  • Complaint management, brand protection, and product-safety functions should be integrated rather than operating independently.
  • Organizations should review data governance procedures to ensure that complaint investigations involving personal data are handled securely and consistently.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner

Other Articles

on by

OCPB: National Action Plan on Online Products Signals More Coordinated Regulatory Oversight

Thailand is moving toward a more coordinated approach to regulating products sold through online channels. The Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) is leading the development of a National Action Plan (NAP) on online products following a nationwide public consultation process. The initiative aims to strengthen cooperation among government agencies responsible for consumer protection, product safety, intellectual property, customs, taxation, digital platforms, and law enforcement.

Although the National Action Plan is still under development, it signals the government’s intention to enhance oversight of online commerce through coordinated enforcement rather than relying on individual regulators acting independently. Businesses participating in Thailand’s digital marketplace should closely monitor these developments and consider reviewing their compliance frameworks in anticipation of increased regulatory cooperation.

A Coordinated Regulatory Framework:

The proposed National Action Plan is intended to establish an integrated framework for addressing issues associated with products sold online. Rather than creating an entirely new regulatory regime, the initiative seeks to improve cooperation, information sharing, and joint enforcement among relevant authorities.

Its objectives include:

  • strengthening consumer protection in online commerce;
  • reducing the circulation of counterfeit, unsafe, and non-compliant products;
  • improving coordination among regulatory and enforcement agencies;
  • enhancing traceability within online supply chains; and
  • promoting confidence in Thailand’s digital economy.

If implemented as proposed, the framework would enable authorities to respond more efficiently to unlawful online activities by combining investigative resources and sharing information across agencies.

A Broad Regulatory Focus:

The proposed framework extends beyond intellectual property enforcement. Authorities have indicated that the initiative is intended to address a broad range of consumer protection and regulatory concerns relating to products sold online.

Areas expected to receive greater attention include:

  • products that fail to meet mandatory safety standards;
  • cosmetics, food, medical devices, and health products marketed without required approvals;
  • prohibited or restricted goods;
  • misleading or deceptive product claims;
  • goods imported in violation of customs requirements; and
  • products sold in breach of consumer protection laws.

Businesses should therefore view the initiative as a comprehensive regulatory effort affecting multiple areas of compliance rather than solely an anti-counterfeiting measure.

Implications for Online Platforms:

Online marketplaces and social-commerce platforms are likely to face increased expectations regarding their governance of third-party sellers and product listings.

As regulatory cooperation expands, platforms may be expected to strengthen:

  • seller verification procedures;
  • mechanisms for removing unlawful listings;
  • monitoring of higher-risk products;
  • cooperation with government investigations; and
  • recordkeeping to support regulatory enforcement.

Platforms with effective compliance systems and transparent governance practices are likely to be better positioned as regulatory expectations evolve.

Considerations for Online Sellers:

Online sellers should ensure that products offered through digital channels comply with all applicable regulatory requirements.

Businesses should review whether regulated products possess the necessary registrations, approvals, certifications, or licenses. Marketing materials, product descriptions, pricing information, and labeling should also be assessed to ensure compliance with consumer protection requirements.

Businesses importing products into Thailand should also verify that customs documentation and import procedures are properly maintained, particularly if enforcement activities become more coordinated across agencies.

Logistics Providers and Payment Service Providers:

The proposed National Action Plan recognizes that effective enforcement may require cooperation from businesses supporting online transactions.

Logistics providers may receive requests from authorities to assist in tracing the movement of goods associated with unlawful online sales.

Similarly, payment service providers may be asked to cooperate in investigations involving transactions connected with illegal products or fraudulent online businesses.

Maintaining appropriate compliance procedures and responding promptly to lawful requests from competent authorities will remain important risk management measures.

Opportunities for Brand Owners:

For brand owners, the proposed framework may strengthen enforcement against counterfeit and infringing products sold online.

Closer coordination among consumer protection authorities, customs officials, intellectual property agencies, and law enforcement may facilitate more effective action against repeat offenders and organized distribution networks.

Nevertheless, businesses should continue monitoring online marketplaces, preserving evidence of infringement, utilizing platform reporting mechanisms, and pursuing civil or criminal remedies where appropriate.

Preparing for a More Coordinated Enforcement Environment:

Although the National Action Plan has not yet been finalized, businesses should consider reviewing their compliance programs in anticipation of increased regulatory cooperation.

Practical steps include:

  • conducting compliance reviews of products sold online;
  • strengthening seller onboarding and verification processes;
  • maintaining documentation demonstrating regulatory compliance;
  • reviewing procedures for responding to regulatory requests;
  • establishing effective complaint-handling and takedown procedures; and
  • providing compliance training for employees responsible for online sales and marketplace operations.

Early preparation may help businesses reduce regulatory risks once the coordinated framework is implemented.

Key takeaways:

  • The Office of the Consumer Protection Board is leading the development of a National Action Plan on online products following a nationwide consultation process.
  • The initiative is intended to strengthen coordination among agencies responsible for consumer protection, product safety, customs, taxation, intellectual property, and law enforcement.
  • The proposed framework extends beyond counterfeit goods to address broader regulatory and consumer protection issues relating to online product sales.
  • Online marketplaces, sellers, logistics providers, payment service providers, and brand owners should expect greater regulatory cooperation and more coordinated enforcement.
  • Businesses should review and strengthen their compliance programs in preparation for the evolving regulatory land

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner

Other Articles

on by

Billing Software Requirements vs. Electronic Invoicing Requirements

Executive Summary:

As governments continue to digitalize tax administration, businesses are increasingly expected to adopt electronic invoicing solutions that comply with evolving regulatory requirements. Although the terms billing software and electronic invoicing are often used interchangeably, they represent distinct concepts that serve different commercial and legal functions.

In Thailand, billing software is not subject to a dedicated statutory or regulatory framework. Businesses are generally free to select accounting, billing, or enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems that best support their commercial operations, provided they comply with the Revenue Code and other applicable laws. Electronic invoicing, by contrast, is governed by the Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt framework, which establishes the legal and technical requirements for issuing electronic tax invoices recognized for VAT purposes.

Understanding the distinction between these concepts is important for businesses implementing digital invoicing solutions. A billing system that efficiently generates commercial invoices does not necessarily satisfy the legal requirements for issuing electronic tax invoices. Businesses should therefore evaluate their invoicing systems not only from an operational perspective but also from a tax compliance standpoint.

Introduction:

Digital transformation has fundamentally changed the way businesses prepare invoices, maintain accounting records, and comply with tax obligations. Around the world, tax authorities have introduced electronic invoicing regimes to improve tax compliance, enhance transparency, and reduce administrative burdens for both taxpayers and regulators.

Although electronic invoicing has become an increasingly common feature of modern tax systems, countries have adopted different regulatory approaches. Some jurisdictions regulate the software used to generate invoices, while others focus on the legal validity and technical characteristics of the electronic tax documents themselves.

Thailand follows the latter approach. Rather than regulating billing software as a separate category of software, Thai law establishes a framework governing the issuance of electronic tax invoices through the Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt system. Consequently, businesses remain free to use their preferred accounting or ERP software, provided that the electronic tax documents generated by those systems comply with the applicable legal and technical requirements.

For businesses operating in Thailand, particularly multinational enterprises implementing global ERP platforms, understanding the distinction between billing software and electronic invoicing is essential. While both are integral components of modern financial management, they perform different functions and are subject to different legal considerations.

Billing Software:

Billing software generally refers to applications used by businesses to prepare invoices, calculate taxes, record payments, manage customer accounts, and maintain accounting records. These functions support day-to-day commercial operations and are commonly integrated into accounting software or ERP systems.

Unlike some jurisdictions that regulate invoicing software, Thailand does not currently impose a dedicated legal or regulatory regime governing billing software itself. There is no statutory requirement for billing software to be licensed, certified, or approved by the Revenue Department before it can be used by businesses. Instead, Thai law focuses on the legal sufficiency of the invoices and accounting records generated by the software.

This does not mean that businesses have complete discretion in how billing systems are used. Regardless of the software selected, businesses remain responsible for ensuring that invoices comply with the Revenue Code, VAT is correctly calculated where applicable, accounting records are properly maintained, and supporting documentation is available for inspection by the tax authorities.

Accordingly, compliance under Thai law depends not on the software itself, but on whether the business uses that software in a manner that satisfies its statutory obligations. A business may therefore choose from a wide range of commercial accounting platforms, cloud-based invoicing applications, or ERP systems without obtaining prior approval from the Revenue Department.

Electronic Invoicing:

Electronic invoicing serves a different purpose. Rather than facilitating internal billing processes, it establishes the legal framework under which electronic tax invoices are recognized for VAT purposes.

Thailand’s electronic invoicing regime is principally governed by the Revenue Code, supplemented by the Electronic Transactions Act, Ministerial Regulation No. 384, and Revenue Department notifications prescribing the technical standards for electronic tax documents. Collectively, these instruments enable tax invoices and receipts to be created, transmitted, and retained electronically while ensuring their authenticity, integrity, and reliability.

Businesses wishing to issue electronic tax invoices under the Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt framework must comply with prescribed legal and technical requirements. These include registration with the Revenue Department, generation of electronic tax documents in the prescribed format, use of appropriate electronic authentication mechanisms, transmission through approved channels where applicable, and maintenance of electronic records in accordance with the Revenue Department’s requirements.

An important characteristic of the Thai framework is that it regulates the electronic tax document rather than the accounting software used to produce it. Consequently, businesses may continue using their existing accounting or ERP systems, provided those systems are capable of generating electronic tax invoices that comply with the Revenue Department’s technical specifications. In practice, many businesses achieve this through system localization or integration with specialized e-Tax solutions or authorized service providers.

Thailand currently provides two principal electronic invoicing models. The e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt system is designed for businesses requiring full electronic integration, while the e-Tax Invoice by Email system provides a simplified alternative for eligible businesses. Although both systems enable businesses to issue legally recognized electronic tax invoices, they differ in their technical implementation and authentication methods.

Key Takeaways:

  • Thailand does not regulate billing software as a separate legal category or require billing software to be certified or approved by the Revenue Department.
  • The Revenue Department’s e-Tax Invoice & e-Receipt framework governs the issuance of legally recognized electronic tax invoices and establishes the applicable technical and procedural requirements.
  • A commercial invoice generated by billing software does not automatically constitute an electronic tax invoice for VAT purposes.
  • Businesses implementing accounting or ERP systems should evaluate both operational functionality and compliance with Thailand’s e-Tax requirements.
  • Early coordination among finance, tax, legal, and information technology functions can help ensure a successful implementation of electronic invoicing while supporting long-term digital tax compliance.

Source: International Comparison July 2026: Global Legal Market Analysis

Read Full Article

on by

Thailand signals a shift toward expenditure-based management of universal healthcare

Thailand’s universal healthcare system has long been regarded as one of the country’s most successful public policy achievements. However, increasing healthcare utilization, an aging population, rising treatment costs, and fiscal constraints are prompting policymakers to reconsider how the system should be financed over the long term.

Recent policy discussions within the Ministry of Public Health indicate that the focus is no longer solely on expanding healthcare benefits. Instead, the government appears to be moving toward a framework that emphasizes expenditure management, efficiency, and value-based healthcare while maintaining universal access to essential medical services.

Shift from expanding benefits to managing sustainability:

Thailand’s public healthcare system is primarily delivered through three government-funded schemes:

  • the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS);
  • the Social Security Scheme (SSS); and
  • the Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme (CSMBS).

Although annual government appropriations for these schemes have continued to increase, healthcare expenditure has grown at an even faster pace due to demographic changes, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, advances in medical technology, and greater public expectations regarding access to treatment. Policymakers have therefore expressed concern that healthcare expenditure may outpace long-term fiscal capacity unless structural reforms are implemented.

Proposed expenditure management measures:

Current policy discussions suggest that future reforms may include greater reliance on expenditure controls rather than across-the-board budget increases.

Measures under consideration reportedly include:

  • expenditure ceilings for public hospitals;
  • tighter monitoring of hospital operating costs, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies;
  • wider use of digital technologies and data analytics to improve financial oversight;
  • periodic review of healthcare benefit packages to prioritize clinically effective and cost-effective services; and
  • broader adoption of value-based healthcare models that reward providers based on patient outcomes rather than service volume.

These initiatives reflect an effort to improve efficiency without fundamentally changing the principle of universal healthcare coverage.

Potential implications for healthcare providers:

Public hospitals may face increasing pressure to operate within fixed budgetary allocations while maintaining service quality. More sophisticated financial management, procurement practices, and clinical governance are therefore likely to become increasingly important.

Healthcare providers may also experience:

  • greater scrutiny of prescribing practices;
  • stronger emphasis on evidence-based treatment pathways;
  • expanded use of health technology assessment in reimbursement decisions; and
  • increased reporting and compliance obligations relating to cost management.

Private healthcare providers participating in government reimbursement programs may likewise experience closer oversight of reimbursement methodologies and service delivery standards.

Regulatory considerations:

While no legislative amendments have fundamentally altered Thailand’s universal healthcare framework, any future implementation of expenditure caps or revised reimbursement mechanisms will require careful alignment with existing legislation governing public health financing and healthcare entitlements.

Future regulatory developments may include:

  • revised payment methodologies;
  • updated reimbursement criteria;
  • enhanced procurement controls;
  • expanded digital monitoring of healthcare expenditure; and
  • revised administrative guidelines governing public healthcare providers.

Businesses operating in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, medical device, and digital health sectors should therefore continue to monitor policy developments, as changes in reimbursement and procurement practices may influence market access and commercial strategies.

Key takeaways:

  • Thailand is shifting its healthcare policy emphasis from expanding benefits toward improving financial sustainability.
  • Expenditure management and value-based healthcare are emerging as central policy themes.
  • Public hospitals are likely to face tighter budgetary controls and enhanced financial oversight.
  • Healthcare suppliers should anticipate increasing scrutiny of reimbursement, procurement, and cost-effectiveness.
  • Although universal healthcare remains intact, future reforms are expected to focus on preserving the system through more disciplined allocation of healthcare resources rather than unlimited expenditure growth.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Ride-Sharing Platforms Face New Digital Governance Requirements

Thailand has completed another important step in regulating ride-sharing services by introducing additional obligations for digital platform operators under the Digital Platform Services (DPS) regime.

While the Department of Land Transport (DLT) regulates the transport aspects of ride-sharing—including the licensing of drivers, vehicles, and transport operators—the Electronic Transactions Commission (ETC), with the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) serving as the regulator, has introduced additional operational requirements applicable specifically to ride-sharing platforms. These requirements are issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services Businesses Required to be Notified and are intended to strengthen platform governance, consumer protection, and regulatory oversight.

The new notification reflects the growing recognition that digital platforms are no longer merely technology providers but have become key participants in the delivery of transportation services.

Regulatory Background:

Until recently, Thailand’s regulation of ride-sharing focused primarily on transport law. Existing legislation governed the licensing of public vehicles and drivers, while digital platforms facilitating ride-sharing services were subject mainly to general laws relating to electronic transactions, consumer protection, and personal data protection.

As app-based transportation became increasingly popular, regulators recognized that platforms exercise substantial control over the passenger experience. Platforms determine which drivers are permitted to provide services, process payments, establish pricing mechanisms, collect user data, manage customer complaints, and may suspend or remove drivers from the platform.

Accordingly, Thailand has adopted a dual regulatory model.

The Department of Land Transport is responsible for transport regulation, including driver qualifications, vehicle registration, licensing requirements, and operational safety. Separately, the ETC and ETDA regulate the operation of ride-sharing platforms as digital platform services under the DPS Royal Decree. Rather than regulating the transportation service itself, the ETC notification focuses on the responsibilities of platform operators in operating their digital services responsibly and protecting users.

Why Ride-Sharing Platforms Are Subject to Additional Regulation:

The ETC considers ride-sharing platforms to present unique risks compared with many other digital platforms because they facilitate real-world services that directly affect users’ safety and involve continuous interaction between passengers and drivers.

Unlike a conventional online marketplace, ride-sharing platforms influence who may provide transportation services, verify drivers’ qualifications, allocate trips, process payments, and maintain records relating to every journey.

For these reasons, the notification establishes additional operational requirements specifically for ride-sharing platforms.

Enhanced Driver and Vehicle Verification:

One of the principal obligations is the requirement for platform operators to verify that drivers and vehicles satisfy applicable transport law requirements before allowing them to accept bookings.

Platforms are expected to establish systems capable of verifying that:

  • drivers possess the required public driving licences;
  • vehicles have been properly registered for public transport;
  • supporting documentation remains valid; and
  • drivers who no longer satisfy regulatory requirements are prevented from providing services through the platform.

This complements, rather than replaces, the DLT’s licensing framework by requiring platforms to actively support regulatory compliance.

Greater Transparency:

The notification also promotes greater transparency between platform operators and users.

Platforms are expected to provide users with clear and accessible information regarding matters such as:

  • applicable service terms and conditions;
  • pricing information and fees;
  • cancellation policies;
  • complaint procedures;
  • user rights and responsibilities; and
  • other information necessary for users to make informed decisions when using the service.

Greater transparency is intended to strengthen user confidence while reducing disputes arising from misunderstandings concerning platform operations.

Complaint Handling and User Protection:

Consumer protection is another central feature of the notification.

Platform operators are expected to establish accessible procedures allowing users to report complaints, safety incidents, inappropriate conduct, or other service-related concerns.

Operators should maintain procedures for:

  • receiving complaints;
  • investigating reported incidents;
  • communicating investigation outcomes;
  • providing appropriate remedies where justified; and
  • maintaining records of complaint resolution.

These requirements reinforce the principle that platform operators should actively manage user protection rather than relying solely on government enforcement.

Internal Governance and Regulatory Cooperation:

The notification also requires operators to implement appropriate internal governance measures.

Depending on the nature of the platform’s operations, these measures may include maintaining operational records, documenting compliance activities, monitoring platform risks, and cooperating with competent authorities when information is requested.

Such obligations support more effective regulatory supervision while encouraging platforms to adopt robust compliance management systems.

Relationship with Other Laws:

Compliance with the ETC notification does not eliminate obligations arising under other legal regimes.

Ride-sharing platform operators must continue to comply with:

  • transport regulations administered by the Department of Land Transport;
  • the Digital Platform Services Royal Decree and related notifications;
  • the Personal Data Protection Act;
  • consumer protection legislation; and
  • other applicable laws governing electronic transactions.

Businesses should therefore adopt an integrated compliance framework that addresses both transport regulation and digital platform governance.

Practical Implications:

The notification requires ride-sharing platforms to move beyond a purely commercial focus and adopt governance structures comparable to those expected of regulated digital intermediaries.

Operators should review whether their existing compliance programmes adequately address:

  • driver and vehicle verification;
  • platform transparency;
  • complaint handling procedures;
  • user protection measures;
  • internal governance policies;
  • document retention; and
  • coordination between transport compliance and digital platform compliance.

For international platform operators, many of these requirements may resemble governance obligations already implemented in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, local compliance should be reviewed carefully because the Thai notification imposes specific obligations linked to Thailand’s transport regulatory framework.

Key Takeaways:

  • Thailand now regulates ride-sharing through complementary transport and digital platform regulatory regimes.
  • The Department of Land Transport oversees drivers, vehicles, and transport licensing, while the ETC/ETDA regulates the operation of ride-sharing platforms under the Digital Platform Services framework.
  • The new notification requires platforms to implement enhanced driver and vehicle verification, improve transparency, strengthen complaint handling, and maintain appropriate governance systems.
  • Platform operators should integrate transport compliance with digital platform compliance to satisfy Thailand’s evolving regulatory expectations.
  • The notification demonstrates Thailand’s broader policy of holding digital platforms directly accountable for the services they facilitate, rather than regulating only the underlying transport providers.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

ETDA’s Proposed AI Sandbox Signals a New Phase of AI Governance

The Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has opened a public consultation on a draft notification establishing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Sandbox. Although the notification has not yet been adopted, it represents one of the clearest regulatory signals that Thailand is moving toward a structured governance framework for AI systems through a controlled testing environment.

For businesses developing or deploying AI solutions, the proposed AI Sandbox is more than a pilot initiative. It is likely to establish regulatory expectations that may influence future AI compliance standards across multiple sectors.

Why the AI Sandbox matters                                              

Regulatory sandboxes have long been used in the financial sector to facilitate innovation while allowing regulators to observe risks under controlled conditions. The proposed AI Sandbox extends this concept to AI technologies by providing an environment where AI systems can be tested before wider deployment.

Unlike traditional compliance regimes that focus primarily on post-deployment enforcement, an AI Sandbox emphasizes governance during the development and testing stages. This reflects an international regulatory trend toward proactive AI risk management.

Although participation in the Sandbox may initially be voluntary, organizations should not view it merely as an experimental program. Regulatory sandboxes frequently become the foundation for future best practices and may ultimately shape industry standards and supervisory expectations.

A shift toward risk-based AI governance

While the draft notification remains subject to consultation, it suggests that AI governance in Thailand is moving toward a risk-based model.

Businesses should expect greater emphasis on governance measures such as:

  • AI risk identification and assessment;
  • testing and validation before deployment;
  • documentation of AI models, datasets, and development processes;
  • human oversight over significant AI-assisted decisions;
  • ongoing monitoring throughout the AI lifecycle; and
  • governance mechanisms for accountability and incident management.

These principles are broadly consistent with international AI governance developments and demonstrate a growing expectation that organizations should be able to explain not only what an AI system does, but also how risks have been identified and managed.

Implications for businesses

The proposed framework has implications across numerous industries, particularly where AI systems influence commercial or operational decision-making.

  • Technology companies and SaaS providers
  • Software developers offering AI-enabled products may need to implement more formal governance processes throughout the product lifecycle. Technical documentation, testing records, model validation, and change management procedures could become increasingly important in demonstrating responsible AI practices.
  • Organizations that currently rely on informal development processes may eventually need governance structures comparable to those already used for cybersecurity and information security compliance.
  • Financial services and fintech
  • Financial institutions already operate within a highly regulated environment. AI governance requirements may become an additional layer of compliance where AI is used for credit scoring, fraud detection, investment services, customer onboarding, or automated decision-making.
  • Existing risk management frameworks may therefore need to expand to include AI-specific controls.
  • Healthcare and health technology
  • Healthcare providers and health technology companies using AI for diagnostics, treatment recommendations, clinical decision support, or patient management are likely to face heightened expectations regarding accuracy, validation, human supervision, and patient safety.
  • Testing within a controlled environment could become an important mechanism for demonstrating reliability before deployment.
  • HR technology
  • Organizations using AI in recruitment, employee evaluation, workforce management, or performance assessment should anticipate closer scrutiny of automated decision-making processes.
  • Transparent governance, human review, and measures to reduce discriminatory outcomes are likely to become increasingly significant compliance considerations.
  • Digital platforms
  • Platform operators deploying generative AI, recommendation algorithms, content moderation systems, or AI-powered customer services may also need stronger governance over system performance, monitoring, and accountability.
  • The ability to document how AI systems operate and respond to identified risks may become an important aspect of regulatory compliance.

Interaction with existing legal frameworks

Although the AI Sandbox is intended to facilitate innovation, participation is unlikely to exempt organizations from existing legal obligations.

Organizations testing AI systems would still be expected to comply with applicable laws, including those governing:

  • personal data protection under the Personal Data Protection Act;
  • electronic transactions;
  • cybersecurity obligations;
  • consumer protection;
  • intellectual property rights; and
  • sector-specific regulatory requirements.

For example, organizations using personal data for AI model training or testing should ensure that appropriate legal bases, transparency obligations, data security measures, and data subject rights continue to be observed.

Similarly, businesses developing generative AI applications should continue to assess potential intellectual property risks relating to training data, generated outputs, and ownership of AI-assisted content.

Preparing for future regulatory expectations

Although the draft notification has not yet entered into force, organizations should consider using the consultation period to evaluate their existing AI governance practices.

Practical steps may include:

  • identifying AI systems currently in operation;
  • classifying AI use cases according to potential risk;
  • documenting AI development and deployment processes;
  • establishing internal AI governance policies;
  • implementing human oversight for significant AI-assisted decisions;
  • reviewing contractual allocation of AI-related responsibilities with vendors and customers; and
  • ensuring that AI governance aligns with existing data protection and cybersecurity compliance programs.

Organizations that begin implementing these governance measures now are likely to be better positioned if the AI Sandbox becomes operational and if similar requirements are incorporated into future regulatory frameworks.

Looking ahead

The draft AI Sandbox notification demonstrates that Thai regulators are moving beyond high-level discussions about artificial intelligence and toward practical governance mechanisms.

Even if participation remains voluntary during its initial stages, the Sandbox is likely to influence regulatory expectations regarding responsible AI development and deployment. Businesses should therefore view the proposal not simply as a testing initiative, but as an indication of the governance standards that may shape future AI regulation.

Key takeaways

Businesses that prepare early are likely to be better positioned as AI governance requirements continue to evolve.

The proposed AI Sandbox represents a significant step toward a structured AI governance framework.

The initiative reflects a broader shift toward risk-based regulation and responsible AI development.

Organizations developing or deploying AI should begin strengthening governance, documentation, testing, and oversight processes.

Existing obligations under data protection, cybersecurity, consumer protection, and intellectual property laws will continue to apply during AI development and testing.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Super License Reform Moves to Final Stage Before Becoming Law

In our previous article, “Super License: The Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public,” we discussed the proposed overhaul of the administrative licensing regime and its potential to fundamentally modernize public services and regulatory approvals.

Super License: The Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public – The Legal Co., Ltd.

The legislative process has now reached a significant milestone. The Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public B.E. 2569 has been approved by Parliament and is currently awaiting publication in the Government Gazette before coming into force. Once effective, the new legislation will repeal the Facilitation of Licensing by Government Agencies Act B.E. 2558 (2015) and introduce a substantially broader and more integrated framework for government licensing and public services.

A Shift from Licensing Control to Public Service Facilitation:

The new legislation reflects a significant policy shift in the administration of regulatory approvals. Rather than focusing solely on licensing procedures, it establishes a broader framework designed to improve the overall delivery of government services by emphasizing efficiency, transparency, digital integration, and reduced administrative burdens.

The scope of the law extends beyond traditional licensing procedures to cover registrations, notifications, approvals, and various public services provided by government agencies. This broader application aims to establish consistent administrative standards across the public sector while making interactions with government agencies more predictable and user-friendly.

Greater Transparency Through Mandatory Public Handbooks:

One of the most significant reforms is the enhanced requirement for government agencies to prepare comprehensive public handbooks.

These handbooks must clearly specify:

  • application procedures;
  • required documents;
  • statutory processing periods;
  • applicable fees;
  • approval criteria;
  • conditions imposed on applicants; and
  • written guidelines governing the exercise of official discretion.

Requiring agencies to disclose how discretion will be exercised represents an important development. It is intended to reduce inconsistent decision-making, improve legal certainty, and minimize opportunities for arbitrary administrative actions.

Digital Government and “Once-Only” Documentation:

The legislation further advances the government’s digital transformation policy by requiring agencies to utilize electronic information already available within government systems.

Where government agencies already possess information through interconnected databases, applicants generally should not be required to submit the same documents repeatedly. This “once-only” principle is expected to reduce paperwork significantly and improve the overall efficiency of administrative procedures.

The legislation also supports greater use of electronic application systems and centralized digital service platforms.

The Super License Mechanism:

Perhaps the most anticipated feature is the introduction of the Super License mechanism.

For business activities designated by the Cabinet, applicants will be able to obtain a principal license that automatically covers related subsidiary approvals normally issued by multiple government agencies. Instead of pursuing numerous sequential approvals, businesses will be able to complete much of the licensing process through a single application.

Although the categories of businesses eligible for the Super License mechanism will be determined through subsequent implementing measures, the reform is expected to benefit sectors that traditionally require multiple regulatory approvals, including manufacturing, hospitality, energy, and certain service industries.

The practical effectiveness of this mechanism will ultimately depend upon the implementing regulations and the level of coordination among participating agencies.

Faster Licensing Procedures:

The legislation introduces several measures intended to shorten administrative timelines.

Government agencies will be required to review applications promptly upon receipt, notify applicants immediately if documents are incomplete, and adhere to published processing periods. Where delays become unavoidable, agencies must notify applicants and explain the reasons for any extension.

In addition, the legislation provides for:

  • centralized application centers;
  • electronic submission and tracking systems;
  • expedited processing channels for eligible matters;
  • simplified renewal procedures for certain licenses; and
  • multilingual services where appropriate.

Collectively, these measures are designed to reduce procedural uncertainty while improving the overall applicant experience.

Deemed Approval for Certain Applications:

One of the most closely watched reforms is the introduction of a form of deemed approval.

For specified categories of lower-risk activities, where the responsible agency fails to complete consideration within the prescribed timeframe and does not properly extend the review period, the application may be treated as approved by operation of law.

This mechanism is intended to encourage administrative efficiency while providing greater certainty for businesses. However, it is not expected to apply universally, particularly where public safety, environmental protection, national security, or other significant public interests require substantive regulatory review.

Provisional Operations for Low-Risk Activities:

The legislation also introduces mechanisms allowing certain low-risk businesses to commence operations through notification or registration before obtaining full approval.

This represents a notable departure from the traditional approach, under which businesses generally must wait until all approvals have been formally issued before commencing operations. The reform seeks to facilitate earlier economic activity while maintaining appropriate regulatory oversight.

Increased Accountability for Government Agencies:

The legislation imposes stronger obligations on public officials responsible for licensing and service delivery.

Failure to comply with statutory procedures—such as requesting unnecessary documents, failing to meet prescribed timelines without justification, or otherwise violating procedural requirements—may constitute disciplinary misconduct.

These accountability measures reinforce the legislation’s broader objective of improving public confidence in administrative decision-making.

What Businesses Should Do Next:

Although the legislation has completed the parliamentary process, businesses should recognize that it will not become effective until publication in the Government Gazette.

In the meantime, companies that regularly interact with licensing authorities should begin assessing how the new framework may affect their operations. Particular attention should be paid to businesses that currently require approvals from multiple agencies, as they may eventually benefit from the Super License mechanism once implementing regulations identify eligible sectors.

Businesses should also monitor forthcoming subordinate legislation, ministerial regulations, and administrative guidelines, which will determine many of the practical details governing implementation.

Key Takeaways:

  • Businesses should begin reviewing their regulatory compliance strategies and monitor the issuance of subordinate legislation that will govern implementation of the new regime.
  • Parliament has approved the new Act, which is now awaiting publication in the Government Gazette before becoming effective.
  • The legislation replaces the existing licensing facilitation framework with a broader law covering licensing, registrations, notifications, approvals, and public services.
  • The new framework emphasizes transparency, digital government, reduced administrative burdens, and standardized procedures.
  • The Super License mechanism has the potential to significantly simplify regulatory approvals for businesses requiring multiple licenses, although further implementing regulations will determine its practical scope.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Related Articles: Super License: The Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Other Articles

on by

Government Agencies Accelerate Work-from-Home Policies Through e-Office and Digital Government Initiatives

Introduction:

The public sector is continuing its digital transformation through expanded adoption of work-from-home (WFH) arrangements supported by electronic office systems and digital government infrastructure. In 2026, the government intensified these efforts as part of broader energy conservation measures while simultaneously advancing long-term public sector digitalization objectives.

Recent government directives signal a significant policy shift toward greater reliance on electronic document management, digital signatures, online collaboration tools, and cloud-based administrative platforms. Government agencies are therefore increasingly required to review and update internal regulations, operational procedures, and workforce management policies to support remote working arrangements without compromising public services, information security, or administrative accountability.

Cabinet Resolution Promoting Work-from-Home Arrangements:

On 10 March 2026, the Cabinet resolved that government agencies and state enterprises should immediately implement work-from-home measures for functions that do not directly involve public-facing services. The policy was introduced primarily as a response to energy concerns and rising fuel consumption, while also supporting broader governmental objectives relating to digital government development.

The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) subsequently announced support for the policy through expanded utilization of the government’s e-Office platform and related digital systems. The initiative reflects the government’s continuing commitment to reducing paper-based administrative processes and promoting flexible work arrangements across the public sector.

e-Office as the Foundation for Remote Government Operations:

The e-Office platform serves as a centralized electronic office management system designed to enable government officials to perform their duties remotely while maintaining official administrative processes.

Core functionalities include:

  • Electronic document management (e-Document);
  • Digital workflow and document routing;
  • Electronic correspondence and records management;
  • Digital signature capabilities;
  • Online meeting and collaboration tools;
  • Task monitoring and reporting systems; and
  • Time attendance and work tracking functions through integrated Timesheet applications.

The system allows government personnel to access official documents, approve transactions, monitor workflow progress, and collaborate with colleagues from remote locations while preserving audit trails and administrative transparency.

According to government reports, more than 160 government agencies and local administrative organizations have already adopted the platform. Agencies may also utilize the Government Data Center and Cloud Service (GDCC) infrastructure to deploy e-Office solutions without incurring additional licensing costs.

Regulatory and Governance Considerations:

While technology enables remote work, successful implementation requires corresponding adjustments to internal regulations and administrative procedures.

Government agencies adopting WFH arrangements should review and update internal rules governing:

Performance Management and Supervision

Traditional attendance-based supervision may no longer be suitable in a remote work environment. Agencies should establish clear frameworks for:

  • Work assignment and delegation;
  • Deliverable-based performance measurement;
  • Reporting obligations;
  • Monitoring mechanisms; and
  • Accountability requirements for remote personnel.

The emphasis should shift from physical presence toward measurable outputs and documented performance indicators.

Working Hours and Attendance Controls

Although work may be performed remotely, agencies remain responsible for ensuring compliance with official working-hour requirements.

Appropriate measures may include:

  • Electronic attendance recording;
  • Timesheet systems;
  • Activity reporting requirements;
  • System log monitoring; and
  • Supervisor approval procedures.

Clear policies should be established regarding availability, response times, and communication expectations during official working hours.

Information Security and Data Protection

Remote access to government systems introduces cybersecurity and information security risks.

Agencies should establish policies addressing:

  • Secure remote access protocols;
  • Authentication requirements;
  • Use of government-issued devices;
  • Confidentiality obligations;
  • Storage and transmission of official information; and
  • Incident reporting procedures.

Particular attention should be given to sensitive government information and compliance with applicable cybersecurity and data governance requirements.

Continuity of Public Services

A fundamental principle of the government’s WFH policy is that public services must not be adversely affected.

Accordingly, agencies should identify:

  • Functions suitable for remote work;
  • Essential on-site operations;
  • Minimum staffing requirements;
  • Public service continuity plans; and
  • Escalation procedures for urgent matters.

Several agencies have adopted rotational work arrangements to balance operational efficiency with service delivery obligations.

Sector-Specific Implementation

Certain government sectors have already introduced tailored WFH frameworks.

For example, the Ministry of Public Health has implemented rotational remote-working arrangements designed to maintain uninterrupted healthcare services while reducing on-site staffing levels where operationally feasible.

Such approaches demonstrate that WFH implementation is not intended as a uniform solution across all agencies but rather as a flexible framework that must be adapted according to each organization’s operational requirements and public service responsibilities.

Implications for Government Agencies:

The 2026 policy initiative reflects a broader transition from temporary remote working measures toward institutionalized digital government operations.

Government agencies should therefore consider:

  • Updating internal regulations to formally recognize remote work arrangements;
  • Expanding deployment of e-Office and digital workflow systems;
  • Establishing objective performance evaluation frameworks;
  • Enhancing cybersecurity and data governance controls;
  • Developing clear WFH eligibility criteria; and
  • Ensuring uninterrupted public service delivery.

As digital government infrastructure continues to mature, WFH arrangements are likely to become a permanent component of public sector administration rather than merely an emergency or temporary measure.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Cabinet has directed government agencies and state enterprises to implement WFH arrangements for non-public-facing functions as part of energy conservation and digital transformation initiatives.
  • The government’s e-Office platform serves as a key technological enabler, providing electronic document management, digital signatures, workflow automation, online collaboration, and work tracking capabilities.
  • Agencies should revise internal regulations governing performance management, attendance monitoring, information security, and service continuity to accommodate remote work environments.
  • Cybersecurity, data protection, and accountability remain critical compliance considerations when implementing WFH policies.

The 2026 initiative represents a significant step toward long-term digital government operations and greater institutional adoption of flexible working arrangements within the public sector.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

NBTC: Notification Regulating the Use of Foreign Internet Services

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

Background and Objectives:

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

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

Key Provisions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for Stakeholders:

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

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

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

Key Takeaways:

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

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

•  Consumers are encouraged to manage international roaming settings proactively.

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

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles