Tag: Legal Updates

on by

Thailand Proposes Amendments to the Social Security Act: Expanding Coverage and Enhancing Benefits for Insured Persons

Introduction

On 3 November 2026, the Cabinet approved the draft Social Security Act (No. ..) B.E. …. (the “Draft Bill”), as proposed by the Ministry of Labor and revised from the version previously reviewed by the Office of the Council of State. The Draft Bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) (the “Social Security Act”) in order to modernize Thailand’s social security framework in response to current economic and demographic conditions, particularly the country’s ageing population.

The Draft Bill proposes amendments in the following key areas.

1. Governance and Administration of the Social Security Fund

  • Social Security Committee: Empowers the Committee to issue regulations governing the write-off of bad debts, and introduces an additional disqualification that prevents members appointed by the Minister from simultaneously serving on the Workmen’s Compensation Fund Committee.
  • Medical Committee: Extends the qualifications and disqualifications applicable to the Social Security Committee to members of the Medical Committee.
  • Term of Office: Changes the term of the Social Security Committee, its advisers and the Medical Committee from two years (with the possibility of reappointment for up to two consecutive terms) to a single term of three years.
  • Audit Committee: Clarifies its composition, qualifications and responsibilities, including the preparation of an audit charter and the review of internal controls, risk management and good governance.
  • Appeal Committee: Revises the relevant provisions to provide greater clarity.

2. Social Security Fund Revenue

The Draft Bill revises the sources of revenue of the Social Security Fund to accommodate the introduction of Section 39/1 and the revised provisions on excess contributions and unclaimed benefits. The proposed sources include:

  • Contributions from the Government, employers and insured persons under Sections 39/1, 40 and 46; and
  • Excess contributions, surplus proceeds from the seizure, attachment or auction of assets, outstanding payments due to insured persons, and unclaimed benefits for which no refund has been requested.

3. Insured Persons under Section 33

  • Maximum Age: Raises the upper age limit for compulsory insurance of employees from 60 to 65 years, or to such other age as may be prescribed by Royal Decree.
  • Wage Base: Requires the minimum and maximum wage bases used to calculate contributions to be reviewed at least once every five years.
  • Child Allowance: Allows eligible insured persons to continue receiving child allowance for six months after their employment ends. This period may be extended by Royal Decree, but may not exceed 12 months.

4. Continued Insurance under Section 39

  • Increases the minimum contribution period required for former Section 33 insured persons to apply for continued insurance from 12 to 24 months.
  • Requires eligible persons to notify the Social Security Office (the “SSO”) within six months from the date their Section 33 insured status ends.
  • Imposes a surcharge of 2% per month on unpaid or underpaid contributions, capped at the amount of contributions payable.

5. New Section 39/1: Continued Coverage for Old-Age Pension Recipients

The Draft Bill introduces Section 39/1, which allows certain persons who have ceased to be insured under Section 33 or Section 39 and are entitled to an old-age pension to continue their social security coverage.

  • Eligibility and Notification: Eligible persons may elect to continue coverage by notifying the SSO within six months from the date their insured status ends, while retaining their old-age pension entitlement.
  • Contributions: The Government will contribute one part for every two parts contributed by the insured person, at the rates prescribed by Ministerial Regulation.
  • Coverage: Continued coverage will provide benefits in respect of sickness or injury, disability and death. These rights will be non-transferable and not subject to execution.

6. Contribution Payments and Refunds

The Draft Bill clarifies employers’ obligations regarding contribution payments and revises the procedures for recovering excess contributions and surplus proceeds, as follows:

  • Contribution Payments: Employers must deduct the insured person’s share of contributions from wages and submit both the employer’s and the insured person’s contributions, together with the prescribed form, to the SSO by the 15th day of the following month.
  • Failure to Pay Contributions: Where an employer fails to submit contributions or submits an insufficient amount, an officer may issue a written notice requiring payment of the outstanding contributions and surcharge within a period of not less than 30 days from receipt of the notice.
  • Excess Contributions under Section 33: Employers may offset excess contributions against contributions payable in the following period. Alternatively, employers, insured persons or other entitled persons may request a refund within one year from notification by the SSO.
  • Excess Contributions under Sections 39 and 39/1: Insured persons may offset excess contributions against subsequent contributions or request a refund within one year from notification by the SSO.
  • Surplus Auction Proceeds: Any surplus remaining after deduction of enforcement expenses, outstanding contributions and surcharges must be returned to the employer or other entitled person. The SSO must notify the entitled person to claim the amount within one year.
  • Unclaimed Amounts: If an amount remains unclaimed three years after notification, the SSO must deposit it into a designated account. If it remains unclaimed after ten years, it will be transferred to the Social Security Fund as Fund revenue. The entitled person may subsequently claim the amount, together with the interest earned on the bank deposit.

7. Maternity and Disability Benefits

  • Maternity Benefits: Extends the benefit period from 90 to 98 days, at 50% of wages, for up to two occasions. A different entitlement period may be prescribed by Ministerial Regulation.
  • Disability Benefits: Increases the monthly income replacement benefit for non-work-related disability from a maximum of 50% to a maximum of 70% of wages.

8. Old-Age Benefits

The Draft Bill introduces greater flexibility in the payment and calculation of old-age benefits, including the following:

  • Calculation of Benefits: Wages previously used as the basis for calculating old-age contributions will be adjusted to their present value when calculating benefits.
  • Pension or Lump-Sum Gratuity: Insured persons with at least 180 months of contributions may choose between a monthly old-age pension and a lump-sum old-age gratuity upon reaching the age of 55 or upon termination of insured status, subject to the prescribed conditions.
  • Payment Following Unemployment Benefits: Where an insured person remains entitled to unemployment benefits, payment of old-age benefits will commence only after the unemployment benefit entitlement ends.
  • Advance Pension: Eligible pension recipients may apply for an advance payment of up to 60 times their monthly pension, subject to the criteria, procedures and discount prescribed by Ministerial Regulation.
  • Partial Withdrawal: An insured person, or a former insured person with at least 60 months of old-age contributions, may withdraw part of their contributions before reaching the age of 55 or before their insured status ends, in the event of a serious disaster affecting their livelihood.
  • Use as Loan Collateral: An insured person, or a former insured person with at least 60 months of old-age contributions, may use part of their old-age contributions as collateral for a loan from a financial institution that has entered into an agreement with the SSO.
  • Withdrawal and Collateral Limits: The amount available for partial withdrawal or use as loan collateral is limited to 30% of the person’s old-age contributions and may not exceed twice the maximum wage base applicable to that person.
  • Repayment and Restoration of Entitlement: Full old-age benefit entitlement may be restored upon repayment of the amount received, together with the Fund’s investment opportunity cost.
  • Death Before Receiving Old-Age Benefits: The SSO may deduct the relevant outstanding amount from the benefits payable to a person who dies before receiving old-age benefits. Any remaining balance will be payable to the person’s heirs.

9. Unemployment Benefits

The Draft Bill clarifies the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits. To qualify, an insured person must:

  • Be aged 60 or below;
  • Have made contributions for at least six months within the 15 months preceding unemployment; and
  • Not be receiving old-age benefits at the time of claiming unemployment benefits.

10. Penalties

The Draft Bill revises certain penalties under the Social Security Act by replacing criminal penalties with regulatory fines under the Act on Imposition of Pinai Regulatory Fines, B.E. 2565 (2022), as follows:

  • Survey Forms: Intentionally failing to complete or return a survey form, or providing incomplete information, will be subject to a regulatory fine of up to THB 5,000.
  • Employer Reporting Requirements: Employers who fail to submit employee registration forms within 30 days from the date an employee becomes insured, fail to notify the SSO of changes to relevant information by the 15th day of the following month, or fail to submit contribution forms by the statutory deadline will be subject to a regulatory fine of up to THB 20,000, plus an additional daily fine of up to THB 5,000.
  • False Information: Criminal penalties will continue to apply to employers who knowingly submit false information concerning insured persons, wages or other required particulars, or who submit false contribution statements. These offences remain punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to THB 20,000, or both.

11. Transitional Provisions

The Draft Bill includes transitional provisions to ensure continuity following its entry into force:

  • Home Workers Protection Committee: Existing members will remain in office until the employer and insured-person representatives are appointed in accordance with the amended Section 8(3).
  • Continued Insurance under Section 39: Former Section 33 insured persons who have contributed for at least 12 months, and whose insured status ended due to termination of employment, may continue insurance under Section 39 on the basis of the previous eligibility requirements, provided that they notify the SSO within six months from the date their insured status ends.

Current Legislative Status

Following the Cabinet’s approval on 3 November 2026, the Draft Bill will be submitted to the House of Representatives Coordination Committee before proceeding to the House of Representatives for consideration. Cabinet’s approval does not bring the proposed amendments into effect. The existing Social Security Act will remain in force until the Draft Bill completes the legislative process and the amendment is promulgated and enters into force.

The Cabinet also acknowledged the Ministry of Labor’s plan to prepare 18 subordinate legal instruments, comprising one Royal Decree, eight Ministerial Regulations, six regulations and three notifications. These instruments are expected to be prepared within 60 days from the date the Draft Bill enters into force.

Key Takeaways

  • On 3 November 2026, the Cabinet approved the Draft Bill, which proposes amendments to Thailand’s existing social security framework.
  • The proposed amendments revise the governance and administration of the Social Security Fund, including the powers, qualifications and terms of office of its committees, as well as the sources of Fund revenue.
  • The Draft Bill expands and revises coverage for insured persons under Sections 33 and 39, and introduces continued coverage for eligible old-age pension recipients under the new Section 39/1.
  • The Draft Bill revises contribution payment and refund procedures, enhances maternity, disability and old-age benefits, and clarifies the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits.
  • Certain offences will be subject to regulatory fines instead of criminal penalties, while criminal liability will remain for the submission of false information. The Draft Bill also includes transitional provisions.
  • The Draft Bill remains subject to the legislative process and has not yet become law. The existing Social Security Act will remain in force until the Draft Bill enters into force.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

New Marketplace Fee Reductions Signal Greater Regulatory Scrutiny of Social Commerce

Thailand’s Department of Internal Trade (DIT) has announced a temporary reduction in mandatory selling fees charged by three major e-commerce platforms: Shopee, Lazada, and TikTok Shop. The measure follows growing concerns over rising platform fees and their impact on small online businesses. Although, the reductions are based on cooperation between the government and platform operators rather than a new statutory fee cap, they represent an important development in the regulation of digital commerce. The DIT has also confirmed its intention to work with the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT), and other stakeholders to promote greater transparency and fairness in online trading.

Temporary Reduction of Marketplace Fees:

Under the announced arrangements, the three participating platforms will reduce their mandatory selling fees for eligible Thai businesses for six months, from December 1, 2026, through May 31, 2027. The reduced fees generally reflect the rates applied at the beginning of 2026 and cover mandatory charges associated with selling products through the platforms, including applicable commissions, infrastructure fees, and transaction fees. Optional services, such as advertising and promotional activities, are excluded.

The revised fee ranges are as follows:

PlatformExisting FeesReduced Fees
Shopee8.03–19.26%8.03–13.91%
Lazada9.00–17.50%7.50–11.60%
TikTok Shop13.38–21.94%11.24–17.66%

The actual reduction depends on the relevant platform and product category. The DIT estimates that the arrangements could benefit approximately 1.2 million Thai sellers and reduce their aggregate costs by approximately THB 1.93 billion during the six-month period.

Eligibility and Registration Requirements:

The fee reductions are intended for qualifying small Thai businesses that have completed the applicable electronic commerce registration. Individual sellers must have annual sales not exceeding THB 1.8 million per platform, while corporate sellers must have annual revenue not exceeding THB 3.5 million per platform. These thresholds are eligibility criteria for the fee-reduction program and should not be confused with the statutory threshold for value-added tax registration.

The arrangements generally cover consumer goods, fashion, lifestyle products, and other eligible merchandise, but exclude electronic products because of concerns relating to verification of product origin. Participating platforms will invite sellers to register and verify their eligibility, including through coordination with the Department of Business Development. Sellers that have not completed the required commercial registration must do so before obtaining the benefit.

The DIT has indicated that eligibility verification may take approximately ten working days. Businesses should therefore review their registration status and the relevant platform’s application procedures before the reduced rates commence.

Broader Regulatory Cooperation on Digital Platforms:

Beyond the temporary fee reductions, the DIT has confirmed its intention to cooperate with ETDA, the TCCT, business associations, and digital platform operators in addressing transparency, fair trading, and the commercial conditions imposed on online sellers. The cooperation reflects increasing regulatory attention to the relationship between large digital platforms and the businesses that depend on them for market access.

ETDA separately administers the Digital Platform Services (DPS) framework, including additional requirements applicable to designated online marketplaces concerning seller and product verification and the removal of noncompliant products. ETDA has also identified Social Commerce as an area for possible expansion of platform regulation, particularly where social-media services facilitate transactions involving products subject to mandatory legal standards.

These developments should be distinguished from one another. The temporary fee reductions are cooperative commercial arrangements, while existing DPS requirements are binding on operators falling within their respective scope. ETDA’s proposed expansion of regulatory measures to Social Commerce remains a policy development and does not, by itself, impose the same obligations on every social-media platform.

The DIT’s cooperation with ETDA and the TCCT also does not establish that the agencies have jointly issued a new Social Commerce-specific notification. Any additional binding requirements would need to be assessed against the relevant legal instrument and its defined scope.

Implications for Online Businesses and Platform Operators:

The immediate benefit for eligible sellers is a reduction in mandatory platform costs. Businesses should nevertheless examine the complete fee structure, including optional advertising expenses, fulfillment charges, and other services that may remain unchanged. They should also confirm that their commercial registration and sales information satisfy the eligibility conditions.

For platform operators, the development signals closer government scrutiny of fee transparency, seller treatment, and commercial practices. Although the announced reductions are temporary, continued cooperation among the DIT, ETDA, and competition authorities may influence future regulatory approaches to digital marketplaces and Social Commerce.

The broader direction is toward more coordinated oversight of digital commerce, combining consumer protection, product compliance, platform governance, and fair competition. However, the legal consequences of each initiative depend on whether it takes the form of an existing binding obligation, a voluntary arrangement, or a future legislative or regulatory measure.

Key Takeaways:

The temporary marketplace fee reductions provide targeted relief for eligible Thai sellers on Shopee, Lazada, and TikTok Shop, subject to registration, revenue, and product eligibility requirements. They do not establish a generally applicable statutory ceiling on platform fees.

The DIT’s cooperation with ETDA and the TCCT indicates increasing regulatory attention to platform transparency and fair trading. However, existing DPS obligations, proposed Social Commerce regulation, and voluntary marketplace fee arrangements remain legally distinct. Online sellers should review their eligibility and registration status, while platform operators should monitor further developments concerning marketplace governance and competition.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Proposed Amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Certifying Thai Translations and Accepting Foreign-Language Documents

Foreign-language documents are now a routine part of dealing with Thai government agencies, for Thais and foreigners alike. Foreign investors establishing companies or applying for business licenses, individuals applying for visas or work permits, couples registering marriages, families handling inheritance matters and parties to court proceedings may all be required to submit translated documents. Yet the rules on who may certify a Thai translation have not been revised in decades.

The proposed amendment to the Ministerial Regulation B.E. 2540 (1997), set out in draft regulations (the “Draft Regulations”) issued under the Administrative Procedure Act B.E. 2539 (1996), would expand the list of persons and organizations authorized to certify a Thai translation of a foreign-language document submitted to a state official. It would also widen the circumstances in which an official may accept a foreign-language document without a translation.

Background: Too Few Certifiers

Under the existing regulation, applicants (Thai and foreign) who must submit certified Thai translations often struggle to obtain them within the required timeframe. Officials, too, face difficulties receiving and processing such documents, given the volume of certification needed.

The Office of the Council of State (OCS), as secretariat to the Administrative Procedure Committee, considers the list of permitted certifiers too narrow for present circumstances, and the conditions for accepting untranslated documents too limited. The OCS has therefore proposed a more modern and adaptable regulation that still maintains an acceptable standard.

Current Status

The OCS opened a public hearing on the Draft Regulations on 15 October 2026. The hearing remains open until 13 November 2026 through the central public-hearing system.

A Broader Group of Certifiers

The 1997 regulation recognizes only four categories of certifiers:

  • A Thai national holding at least a bachelor’s degree from a programme taught in the language of the document.
  • A university lecturer who teaches that language.
  • A foreign embassy or consulate in Thailand, where the language is an official language of the country it represents.
  • A Thai embassy or consulate abroad.

The Draft Regulations would retain all four categories and add the following:

  • Government units capable of translating the language in question.
  • Public or private university units that teach in, or can translate, the language.
  • Foreign chambers of commerce from countries where the language is used.
  • Thai chambers of commerce and the Board of Trade of Thailand.
  • The Federation of Thai Industries.
  • Registered associations, foundations, juristic persons and other private organizations that can translate or teach the language.

A Simpler System with More Choice

The Draft Regulations would simplify the system by clarifying that:

  • A listed person or organization has the option, but not the duty, to provide certification services.
  • An eligible person or organization may certify a translation prepared by itself or by someone else.
  • A lecturer in any discipline may certify a translation in a language used in their teaching.

This would give applicants more choice of service providers and price points. However, availability and cost will depend on whether the newly eligible certifiers choose to offer the service, and on whether government agencies consistently accept their certifications.

Greater Flexibility for Foreign-Language Documents

Currently, an official may accept a foreign-language document without a Thai translation in two situations: where the official understands the language, or where a colleague does. The Draft Regulations would keep both and add two further cases:

  • Non-essential documents: An official could accept a document without translation if it has no significant bearing on the decision. This reflects existing practice in some agencies and is intended to reduce the burden on applicants.
  • Additional cases by announcement. The Prime Minister, on the recommendation of the Administrative Procedure Committee, could announce further cases in which untranslated documents are acceptable.

The Prime Minister would likewise be empowered, on the committee’s recommendation, to announce additional persons or organizations eligible to certify translations. The Draft Regulations themselves would therefore not need to be amended each time circumstances change, allowing the list of certifiers to keep pace with developments. The Draft Regulations do not create a licensing system, a new committee or any criminal penalties.

Key Takeaways

  • The Draft Regulations aim to make translation certification more practical by widening the range of those who can certify Thai translations of foreign-language documents.
  • The four existing certification routes remain, and a range of government, university, chamber of commerce and private bodies would be added.
  • Officials could accept some foreign-language documents without translation where the document is not significant to their decision.
  • The Draft Regulations will take effect only once enacted; current filings should continue to follow the existing routes.
  • Public comments are open until 13 November 2026.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

TM: Selling One Product Line Can Restrict Your Next Trademark Filing

One Brand, Two Owners

A company owns BRAND X for shampoo and conditioner. It sells the shampoo business and assigns the trademark rights for shampoo to the buyer, while keeping the rights for conditioner. Section 49 of the Trademark Act allows a registered mark to be assigned for some of the goods it covers. Once the partial assignment is recorded, the buyer and seller can own the same mark for their respective goods. The deal may settle who owns BRAND X today while leaving open who can register its next version.

The Conflict Can Surface When Either Party Rebrands:

Suppose the seller later applies to register a refreshed BRAND X logo for conditioner. If the registrar considers the new logo similar to the buyer’s mark and finds that shampoo and conditioner are goods of the same character, the buyer’s mark can block the application of the seller for conditioner. The same issue can arise if the buyer updates its branding and the seller’s retained mark stands in the way.

The Department of Intellectual Property’s examination manual identifies this type of split ownership as a situation Section 51/1 was designed to address. Where that section applies, written consent from the other party creates a presumption of special circumstances. The registrar may then allow coexistence under Section 27, subject to conditions on use. Consent helps, but it does not guarantee registration.

Plan for the Next Filing Before Closing:

The sale agreement should identify the exact goods covered by the transfer and the branding each party will retain. It should also address whether either party may refresh the logo, extend the brand to adjacent products, or file for related marks. If the parties agree to support future filings, specify when written consent must be given, what applications it covers, and how the parties will respond if the registrar proposes limits on use. That discussion is easier while both sides are negotiating the deal than after one has invested in new packaging and needs the other’s signature.

Key Takeaways:

A partial assignment divides existing trademark rights by goods. It does not settle future filings. If both parties will continue using the brand, agree before closing on which changes and product extensions each can pursue, when consent is required, and what happens if registration is refused or allowed only on conditions.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

New EEC Public Consultation Regulations: Key Changes, Legal Requirements and Implications for Project Owners

1. Introduction

The Eastern Economic Corridor Act B.E. 2561 (2018) (the “EEC Act”) sets out the criteria and procedures for designating Special Economic Promotion Zones. These procedures cover feasibility studies, impact assessments, mitigation and remedial measures, and the preparation of draft land-use plans.

The EEC Act also allows members of the public and stakeholders in surrounding areas to express opinions and submit recommendations. This process is intended to promote public understanding and ensure that decision-makers have comprehensive information. In doing so, it helps minimize conflicts, prevent adverse effects on local communities and the environment, and support sustainable investment in targeted industries in a manner consistent with local ways of life.

The previous public consultation regulations had been in force since 2021 and needed to be updated to reflect current circumstances and requirements. In particular, they required clearer provisions for Project Owners, defined as government agencies or landowners holding land within the EEC area who intend to undertake operations to establish or modify zone objectives or land-use plans. Accordingly, the Regulations of the Eastern Economic Corridor Office Re: Public Hearings and Recommendations for Consideration of the Establishment or Modification of Special Economic Promotion Zones, B.E. 2569 (2026) (the “2026 Regulations”) were issued to replace the earlier version.

2. Key Changes Under the 2026 Regulations

The 2026 Regulations revise the criteria and procedures for conducting public consultations and collecting recommendations when applications to establish or modify Special Economic Promotion Zones are considered. They replace the regulations issued in B.E. 2564 (2021) (the “2021 Regulations”) and introduce the following key changes.

2.1 Disclosure of Information Before Public Consultation

Under the 2021 Regulations, information had to be disclosed so that the public and stakeholders were informed before consultation began, but no minimum disclosure period was prescribed.

The 2026 Regulations require this information to be disclosed continuously for at least 15 days before the consultation process begins. This gives the public sufficient time to review and understand the details of the proposed project.

2.2 Forms and Methods of Public Consultation

Clause 6 of the 2021 Regulations allowed public consultation to be conducted in various formats or through various channels.

Under the 2026 Regulations, public consultation meetings are the primary method, and other methods or channels may be used only as supplementary means. In cases of force majeure, the Eastern Economic Corridor Office (the “EECO”) may approve alternative consultation methods in place of public meetings.

As a result, holding public consultation meetings becomes the principal procedural requirement for Project Owners.

2.3 Responsibility for Preparing the Summary Report

Under Clause 8 of the 2021 Regulations, the EECO or the Project Owner, as the case may be, was responsible for preparing the summary report on the public consultation results within 15 days of the consultation date. The report also required EECO approval before publication.

Under Clause 10 of the 2026 Regulations, the Project Owner is expressly designated as the party responsible for preparing the summary report and summitting to the EECO for approval within the same 15-day period.

2.4 Required Contents of the Summary Report

Clause 11 of the 2026 Regulations expressly specifies what the summary report must contain. The emphasis is on compiling the opinions, recommendations and concerns raised by the public and stakeholders. Project Owners must clearly identify the opinions and recommendations received and provide explanations and reasons addressing each of them.

2.5 Publication of the Summary Report

The 2026 Regulations require the summary report to be published on the network system of the local administrative organization continuously for at least 15 days. This ensures that the public and stakeholders have adequate access to the report and can review the consultation results, while enhancing transparency and public participation in the project consideration process.

2.6 Use of Public Consultation Results Obtained Under Other Laws

The 2026 Regulations introduce additional criteria governing the use of public consultation results obtained under other laws.

Where a Project Owner has prepared an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report under the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, and that report was approved within the preceding two years, the Project Owner may rely on the public consultation results in that report to support an application to establish or modify a Special Economic Promotion Zone.

In that case, the Project Owner is not required to conduct a further public consultation under the 2026 Regulations, provided that the prescribed conditions are met.

3. Effective Date and Transitional Provisions

The 2026 Regulations were published in the Government Gazette on 20 October 2026 and came into force on 21 October 2026.

Transitional provisions also address actions taken before the effective date and proceedings already underway. Unless otherwise determined, such actions and proceedings are deemed to have been duly carried out in accordance with the 2026 Regulations.

4. Summary: Impact on Project Owners

The 2026 Regulations increase the compliance responsibilities and accountability of Project Owners in the following respects:

  • Pre-disclosure period: Project timelines must allow for a mandatory 15-day period in which project information is disclosed before consultation begins.
  • Consultation method: Public meetings are now the primary method of consultation. Other channels may be used only as supplementary means, and alternatives to meetings require EECO approval on grounds of force majeure.
  • Reporting responsibility: Project Owners are expressly responsible for preparing the summary report within 15 days of the consultation.
  • Report quality: The report must set out the opinions, recommendations and concerns received, together with reasoned explanations addressing them.
  • Publication: The finalized report must remain publicly available for at least 15 continuous days.
  • Use of existing EIA results: A Project Owner holding an EIA report approved within the preceding two years may rely on its public consultation results and may not need to conduct a separate consultation, subject to the prescribed conditions. This can save considerable time and administrative effort.
  • Transitional provisions: Actions taken before the effective date, and proceedings already underway, are generally deemed to comply with the 2026 Regulations unless otherwise determined.

5. Recommendations for Project Owners

  • Plan and resource the meetings: Allocate sufficient budget and logistical resources. Select accessible venues within or near the affected communities, and establish clear communication channels so that residents can attend easily.
  • Prepare for prompt reporting: Assign a dedicated compliance or environmental, social and governance (ESG) team member, or engage experienced external consultants, to draft the report immediately after the consultation. Build the 15-day deadline into the project timeline and monitor it closely.
  • Record stakeholder feedback systematically: Log all feedback received during consultations and ensure that every major concern raised is addressed with a clear, well-reasoned response in the report. This demonstrates good faith, helps resolve potential conflicts early, and meets the EECO’s more detailed content requirements.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Postpones Departure Tax and Considers Visa Exemptions for Three Long-Haul Markets

Introduction

Thailand has postponed the introduction of a proposed departure tax of THB 1,000 per outbound air passenger. Separately, the Ministry of Tourism and Sports plans to propose a 15-day visa exemption for nationals of Colombia, Mexico and Uzbekistan at the Visa Policy Committee meeting on 9 November 2026.

If approved, the exemption would restore visa-free entry for nationals of these three countries, who were eligible under Thailand’s visa exemption scheme until it was revoked. Together, these developments reflect the Government’s efforts to sustain tourism growth, reduce travel costs and facilitate the entry of international visitors.

Background

1. Departure Tax

Thailand’s departure tax was established under the Emergency Decree on Departure Tax B.E. 2526 (1983). The law prescribes rates of THB 1,000 for air travel and THB 500 for land and sea travel. In practice, however, the tax has not been collected since 1986 for land and sea departures and since 1991 for air departures.

In 2026, the Revenue Department proposed a revised framework imposing a departure tax of THB 1,000 per air departure, regardless of nationality and subject to specified exemptions.

For further details, please visit the link Thailand’s Revenue Department Launches Public Consultation on Draft Departure Tax Act

2. Visa Exemption Scheme

Thailand revised its visa exemption scheme, reducing the permitted visa-free stay from 60 to 30 days and the number of eligible countries and territories from 93 to 60. Nationals of Colombia, Mexico and Uzbekistan were removed from the scheme and must generally obtain a visa before entering Thailand, subject to any applicable bilateral arrangements.

For further details, please visit the link Thailand Revises Visa Exemption Scheme: 30-Day Stay and Revised List of Eligible Countries

Recent Developments

1. Departure Tax Postponed

Following a public hearing on the Draft Departure Tax Act B.E. …. (“Draft Act”) from 30 September to 29 October 2026, the Revenue Department proposed that travelers pay the tax each time they leave Thailand. The proposed rate for air travel was THB 1,000 per person per trip, with authority to raise it to as much as THB 5,000 through ministerial regulation.

Finance Minister has recently announced that the Ministry of Finance will postpone enforcement of the Draft Act. After the IMF–World Bank meetings held in Bangkok this year, he stated that current conditions in the tourism sector are not suitable for introducing the measure.

Thailand recorded approximately 24.4 million foreign arrivals between 1 January and 17 October 2026, generating around THB 1.19 trillion in tourism revenue. The Government is concerned that a departure tax could add to travel costs while the sector is still recovering, particularly as Thailand already charges an arrival-side fee. The Ministry of Finance also cited the effect of the Middle East conflict on fuel prices and airline operating costs.

The postponement applies for the remainder of 2026. The Draft Act has not been withdrawn, and the authorities may reconsider its timing depending on future circumstances.

2. Proposed Visa Exemption for Three Markets

The proposal follows reports of delays in visa processing. Emirates reportedly informed the Tourism Authority of Thailand that 20 to 30 passengers per flight from Mexico were unable to board because their Thai visas had not been issued in time. Uzbek travelers have also reportedly faced a cumbersome e-Visa process handled through the Royal Thai Embassy in Russia, leading some travel agents to switch holiday packages to other destinations.

The exemption is intended to facilitate short visits and support long-haul tourism. However, the Committee must also weigh the security and economic implications, given Thailand’s recent narrowing of its visa exemption scheme.

The proposal has not yet been approved. Until a new measure is formally adopted and takes effect, the current visa requirements for nationals of Colombia, Mexico and Uzbekistan continue to apply. The start date, the number of permitted entries and any conditions have yet to be specified.

Practical Considerations

For Travelers

  • Departure tax: The tax has been postponed and is not currently payable. Do not make any payment for it.
  • Visas: Travelers from Colombia, Mexico and Uzbekistan should continue to meet the visa requirements currently in force for their nationality and should not rely on the proposed exemption until it is formally approved and takes effect.
  • Verification: Confirm requirements with Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the nearest Royal Thai Embassy or Consulate, and apply early where a visa is required.

For Tourism, Travel and Airline Businesses

  • Include terms in new contracts and package prices that allocate responsibility for any government charges introduced after a price is agreed.
  • Review existing fixed-price contracts and travel budgets to determine how they treat new taxes or fees.
  • Monitor the Committee’s deliberations and keep customers informed of current entry requirements until any change takes effect.

For Employers, Advisors and Event Organizers

  • Review travel and reimbursement policies to confirm how newly introduced government charges are treated.
  • Explain to international travelers that the arrival-side fee and the proposed departure tax are separate measures administered under different frameworks.

Key Takeaways

  • Thailand has postponed enforcement of the proposed THB 1,000 departure tax for the remainder of 2026. The proposal has not been withdrawn and may be reconsidered.
  • The Ministry of Tourism and Sports will propose a 15-day visa exemption for nationals of Colombia, Mexico and Uzbekistan at the Visa Policy Committee meeting on 9 November 2026.
  • The proposed exemption is not yet in force. Current visa requirements apply until a new measure is formally implemented.
  • Travelers and businesses should follow official updates and verify the applicable rules before making significant travel bookings or commitments.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: Strengthening IP Enforcement and Scrutiny of Celebrity Name Trademarks

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has recently highlighted two areas of intellectual property protection: institutional cooperation to combat online infringement and closer scrutiny of trademark applications involving the names of celebrities and other well-known individuals. These developments reflect continued administrative attention to both enforcement of existing IP rights and prevention of potentially unauthorized trademark registrations. Although neither initiative introduces new legislation or regulatory procedures, both have practical implications for rights holders, brand owners, and businesses operating in the digital and entertainment sectors.

Website Blocking and Institutional Cooperation:

The DIP recently held discussions with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society concerning the blocking of websites involved in intellectual property infringement under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act. Separately, the DIP met with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court and the specialist prosecution office to discuss cooperation in carrying out their respective official responsibilities.

These discussions indicate an ongoing effort to strengthen coordination among administrative, judicial, and prosecutorial authorities. However, the published announcements do not establish new enforcement powers, application procedures, documentary requirements, processing deadlines, or evidentiary standards. Rights holders should therefore regard these developments as administrative coordination rather than a substantive change in the legal framework governing online infringement.

For businesses facing persistent online infringement, effective enforcement continues to depend on identifying the relevant intellectual property rights, documenting infringing content and URLs, preserving dated evidence, and establishing the authority of the party initiating enforcement action. The appropriate legal route should be assessed according to the nature of the infringement, available evidence, and the remedies sought.

Increased Scrutiny of Trademark Applications Involving Celebrity Names:

In a separate announcement, the DIP emphasized its intention to scrutinize trademark applications involving the names of celebrities and other well-known individuals, particularly where applicants may lack authorization to use those names. The DIP indicated that examination would focus on the applicant’s rights and relevant supporting documents, including evidence of authorization where appropriate.

This administrative position is particularly relevant to trademark applications involving the names of entertainers, public figures, influencers, and other individuals whose names may carry commercial recognition. The use of a well-known person’s name as a trademark may raise questions concerning entitlement to registration, the applicant’s intention, and the possibility of misleading consumers about an association, endorsement, or commercial relationship.

Under the existing Trademark Act, registrability must be assessed against the applicable statutory requirements, including the provisions concerning prohibited marks and other relevant grounds for refusal. The absence of authorization does not automatically establish a statutory ground for refusal in every case, nor does the DIP announcement create an independent prohibition against registering celebrity names. The legal assessment remains dependent on the characteristics of the mark, the circumstances of the application, and the evidence available.

The DIP’s position nevertheless signals increased administrative attention to applications that may involve unauthorized exploitation of personal reputation or potentially bad-faith conduct. Applicants seeking to register trademarks incorporating the names of well-known individuals should carefully assess their legal entitlement and retain appropriate documentation supporting the proposed use and registration.

Practical Implications for Businesses and Rights Holders:

The two developments address different stages of intellectual property protection. Website blocking and institutional cooperation concern enforcement against existing infringement, while scrutiny of celebrity-name trademarks concerns examination of applications and prevention of potentially improper registrations.

For rights holders, both developments reinforce the importance of maintaining reliable documentation. Online enforcement requires evidence of infringement and ownership, while trademark applications involving personal names may require evidence establishing the applicant’s entitlement or authorization. Entertainment businesses, talent management agencies, brand owners, and licensing companies should pay particular attention to contractual provisions governing the commercial use and registration of personal names as trademarks.

Businesses should also distinguish administrative policy statements from binding legal changes. The DIP’s announcements indicate enforcement and examination priorities but do not independently expand statutory powers, establish new causes of action, or alter the legal standards applicable to trademark registration and IP enforcement.

Key Takeaways:

The DIP’s recent announcements reflect continued attention to online IP enforcement and potentially unauthorized trademark applications involving celebrity names. Institutional cooperation may support more effective enforcement, while closer examination of trademark applications may help identify questionable claims to well-known personal names. However, neither development changes the existing statutory framework. Rights holders should maintain comprehensive enforcement evidence, ensure that trademark applications are supported by appropriate legal rights and authorization, and monitor whether these administrative initiatives lead to further published guidance or procedural changes.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

DIP: Revised Electronic Filing Procedures for Geographical Indications

The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) has revised its administrative procedures for geographical indication (GI) applications and related filings, including the use of electronic submission systems and digital identity verification. The changes cover GI registration, oppositions, appeals, amendments, cancellation requests, and procedures relating to authorization to use the official Thai GI promotional symbol.​

Electronic Filing and Digital Identity Verification:

The revised procedures facilitate the electronic submission of GI applications and supporting documents through the DIP’s designated electronic system. Applicants may use electronic certificates obtained through the DIP’s digital identity verification system or other approved digital identity services, subject to the applicable requirements. The procedures also address the submission of additional documents, correction of deficiencies, and other steps required during the examination and registration process.​

Electronic Communications and Procedural Deadlines:

Applicants are responsible for monitoring the electronic filing system for official orders, notifications, and decisions concerning their applications. Email alerts are provided as a convenience and should not be relied upon as a substitute for checking the system. This distinction is particularly important where an official communication triggers a deadline for submitting documents, responding to an opposition, or filing an appeal.​

Authorization to Use the Thai GI Symbol:

The DIP has also revised administrative requirements concerning authorization to use the official Thai GI promotional symbol, including the relevant application and approval procedures. Registration of a geographical indication and authorization to use the official promotional symbol are distinct matters. Businesses seeking to display the symbol on their products or marketing materials must comply with the applicable authorization requirements rather than relying solely on the GI’s registered status.​

Key Takeaways:

The revised procedures support the digital administration of GI rights and related applications while placing greater practical importance on electronic identity verification and monitoring of official communications. Applicants, GI producers, and their representatives should ensure that electronic filings satisfy the prescribed requirements and that procedural deadlines are monitored through the designated system. Businesses using GI-related branding should also distinguish between GI registration and authorization to use the official Thai GI promotional symbol.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thai Cabinet Acknowledges Delay in Issuing Integrated Ticketing Regulations

On 20 October 2026, the Thai Cabinet acknowledged the explanation of the Ministry of Transport (the “MOT”) for its delay in issuing subordinate legislation under the Integrated Ticketing System Management Act B.E. 2568 (2025) (the “Act”). The MOT attributed the delay to extended public consultation requirements and additional discussions with transport operators, which prevented it from meeting the statutory deadline of 25 June 2026. Although the subordinate legislation has not yet been issued, the MOT has completed drafting all 20 instruments of subordinate legislation and expects to issue them by the end of 2026.

Background

The Act came into force on 28 December 2025. It establishes a legal framework for an integrated ticketing system that allows passengers to use a single ticket or payment method across different modes of public transportation, including electric trains, buses, conventional trains and boats. By simplifying travel and supporting more affordable fares, the Act aims to encourage greater use of public transportation, reduce traffic congestion and lessen environmental impact.

The Act establishes a regulatory framework covering the following key matters:

  • Integrated ticketing and fares: The Act provides for an integrated ticketing system and authorizes the MOT to prescribe integrated fare rates, which government agencies must use as the basis for future public transport concession agreements.
  • Regulatory oversight: The Act creates the Integrated Ticketing System Policy Committee, which determines policies, technological standards and principles for calculating integrated fares.
  • Licensing requirements: Operators of central revenue management centers, fare card issuance services and integrated ticketing services must obtain licenses from the Minister of Transport.
  • Financial support: The Act creates the Integrated Ticketing System Promotion Fund to support the development and operation of the system, including through loans to eligible private operators. Operators seeking financial support must hold the licenses required under the Act.
  • Mandatory participation: Certain public transport services may be designated by Royal Decree as required to participate in the integrated ticketing system and to comply with the applicable licensing requirements.
  • Enforcement and penalties: The Act imposes monetary penalties for certain violations by licensed operators and criminal penalties for unauthorized operations and other offenses.

While the Act sets out the overall regulatory framework, detailed requirements on fare structures, licensing procedures and operational standards must be prescribed through subordinate legislations. To ensure timely implementation, Section 53 of the Act requires that such legislation be issued within 180 days from the effective date of the Act, or by 25 June 2026. If the MOT cannot meet this deadline, it must report the reasons for the delay to the Cabinet for acknowledgment.

Reasons for the Delay

As the statutory deadline was not met, the MOT reported the following two reasons for the delay to the Cabinet in accordance with Section 53 of the Act.

1. Extended public consultation requirements

Under the revised public consultation guidelines issued in 2026 pursuant to the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Law B.E. 2562 (2019), the minimum online public consultation period was extended from 15 to 30 days. The guidelines also require consultation at two stages: (i) when the key principles of the legislation are proposed and (ii) after the draft legislation has been prepared. These additional requirements extended the drafting process beyond the original schedule.

2. Additional consultations with transport operators

The proposed subordinate legislation directly affects fare collection and revenue allocation among different public transport operators. The MOT therefore needed additional time to consult relevant operators and stakeholders on technical and operational matters, to ensure that the proposed requirements are practical and can be implemented effectively.

Current Status and Next Steps

The MOT also reported that it has completed drafting all 20 instruments of subordinate legislation, although none have yet been issued. The drafts cover licensing, operational and technological standards, integrated fares, revenue management, fund administration, reporting obligations, license transfers, service suspension or termination, and enforcement measures. The MOT expects to issue all 20 instruments by the end of 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • Although the Act is already in force, its full implementation depends on the issuance of subordinate legislation governing integrated fares, licensing and system operations.
  • The missed statutory deadline does not affect the legal validity of the Act, and the MOT remains responsible for issuing the required subordinate legislation.
  • With all 20 drafts completed and issuance expected by the end of 2026, public transport operators and related businesses should monitor regulatory developments and prepare for potential operational and compliance requirements.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Nene Royal: First-to-File Priority and the Risk of Waiting

Filing Priority Matters

Thailand generally follows a first-to-file trademark system. Under Section 20 of the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), as amended by the Trademark Act (No. 2) B.E. 2543 (2000) and (No. 3) B.E. 2559 (2016) (the “Act”), an earlier application takes priority in examination over later conflicting applications, subject to statutory exceptions and challenges. Celebrities should therefore not assume that public recognition alone will prevent another person from registering their name as a trademark. Early filing remains essential, even where the celebrity’s reputation predates the competing application.

The recent “NENE ROYAL” case (application no. 260138519, the “Third-Party Application”) illustrates this risk. The mark is associated with the Thai artist known professionally as “NENE” or “NENE ROYAL” (the “Artist”). A third party filed its application with the Department of Intellectual Property (the “DIP”) before applications for “NENE” and “NENE ROYAL” were filed on behalf of the Artist’s rights holder. Because it was filed first, the Third-Party Application had the potential to affect the examination of the later applications filed on behalf of the Artist’s rights holder under Section 20 of the Act.

On 17 October 2026, however, the DIP issued a statement on the Third-Party Application, demonstrating how trademark examination can identify potential misuse of an artist’s reputation. The DIP required the applicant of the Third-Party Application to clarify the origin of the mark, its relationship with the Artist and whether it had obtained authorization to use the mark. The DIP also explained that unauthorized adoption of a name, combined with circumstances indicating dishonest exploitation of another person’s reputation, may justify refusal of registration.

Following this examination, the applicant filed a request on 19 October 2026 to withdraw the Third-Party Application. The Trademark Registrar approved the withdrawal and issued an order refusing registration of the mark.

Examination May Not Reveal the Connection

The outcome may be different where the examiner does not recognize the name or lacks evidence linking it to a celebrity. This is particularly relevant for foreign artists, emerging personalities and names whose significance is apparent mainly within a particular audience. In such cases, an application may proceed unless the relevant facts are brought to the examiner’s attention.

Rights holders should therefore monitor published applications and support any objection with dated evidence of:

  • the name’s recognition;
  • commercial activity under the name;
  • the applicant’s knowledge of the name; and
  • the absence of authorization.

Section 35 of the Act provides a 60-day opposition period from the date of publication.

Registration Makes the Dispute Harder

If an application proceeds to registration, cancellation may become necessary. Section 67 of the Act allows an interested person claiming better rights in the mark to seek cancellation before the court within five years of the Registrar’s registration order under Section 40 of the Act. Discovering the registration late does not restart this period. Failure to act within the statutory window may bar this route, even where the claimant has an earlier entitlement to the name.

The five-year rule does not, however, make every registration immune from later challenge. Sections 61 and 62 of the Act provide separate grounds for cancellation, including lack of distinctiveness, prohibited characteristics and conflict with public order, morality or public policy. These grounds may be pursued by filing a petition with the Trademark Board and are not subject to the same five-year limit. Whether they apply, however, requires a separate legal and evidentiary assessment. An allegation of better ownership rights or unauthorized use of a name does not, in itself, establish grounds for cancellation under these provisions.

Key Takeaways

Celebrities, management agencies and commercial partners should prioritize three measures: early filing, clear contractual ownership and continuous trademark monitoring. They should also preserve evidence showing how the name acquired its recognition and who authorized its commercial use. Once a conflicting application or registration appears, they should identify the available remedy under the law and act promptly.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles