Tag: Legal Updates

on by

From Voluntary Guidance to Legal Accountability: The Changing Rules for Digital Platforms

Digital platform regulation is entering a new phase. Recent developments indicate a shift from a framework centered largely on registration, disclosure, and risk management toward a more substantive model addressing platform conduct, seller accountability, fee transparency, and potentially the allocation of liability between platforms and businesses operating through them.

Two developments illustrate this direction particularly well. The first is the proposed Digital Platform Economy Act, which is being developed as a broader statutory framework for the platform economy. The second is the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) Guideline on Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fees, which establishes voluntary best practices for the disclosure and adjustment of platform fees. Although the guideline is not mandatory and the proposed Act has not yet been enacted, considered together they provide a useful indication of the regulatory principles increasingly shaping oversight of digital platforms: transparency, fairness, accountability, and greater protection for users and consumers.

A New Regulatory Framework for Digital Platforms:

Digital platform services are currently regulated under the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses that are Subject to Prior Notification. The existing regime establishes notification requirements and imposes various obligations depending on the nature, size, and risk profile of a platform. The proposed Digital Platform Economy Act would represent a significant further development. The government has accelerated work on the legislation, with the current policy timetable contemplating submission to the Cabinet before the draft proceeds to Parliament. As the legislation remains under development, however, both its provisions and legislative timetable remain subject to change.

The emerging framework indicates several areas that platform operators should monitor closely. These include registration and disclosure of information concerning platform operations and revenue, as well as measures intended to give regulators greater visibility over businesses participating in the platform economy. Territorial scope will be particularly important for multinational businesses, since a platform providing services into the local market may potentially become subject to regulatory requirements even where the operator does not have a conventional physical presence in the jurisdiction.

Another important area concerns businesses and individuals offering goods or services through platforms. The regulatory direction increasingly places platforms in the position of gatekeepers rather than merely passive intermediaries. Existing regulatory measures already require certain platforms to obtain and verify seller information and implement risk-management measures concerning goods and services offered through their systems. The proposed legislation appears likely to develop this approach further, making seller onboarding, identity verification, record keeping, monitoring, and enforcement increasingly important compliance functions rather than merely commercial processes.

The Emerging Question of Platform Liability:

Perhaps the most significant issue to monitor is the extent to which a platform may bear responsibility for harm arising from transactions conducted through its service. Platform operators have traditionally characterized themselves as intermediaries connecting independent sellers with customers, and their terms and conditions commonly distinguish the platform from the seller responsible for the underlying goods or services.

The proposed regulatory approach may reduce the practical significance of that distinction. Discussions surrounding the Digital Platform Economy Act contemplate circumstances in which platforms could bear joint responsibility for consumer harm, particularly where the platform fails to perform duties imposed on it. The precise scope of any liability will depend on the final statutory language, including the conduct that triggers liability, available defenses, and the relationship between the new regime and existing consumer protection laws.

If enacted broadly, such liability could materially alter the allocation of risk in the platform economy. Seller verification and monitoring would no longer be viewed simply as regulatory procedures; they could become directly relevant to a platform’s financial exposure when consumers suffer loss. Contractual provisions placing responsibility on sellers, including indemnities, may remain important but would not necessarily protect a platform from independent statutory liability. Platform operators should therefore monitor the liability provisions particularly closely as the draft progresses.

Fee Transparency and Fairness:

While the proposed Act represents the potential development of mandatory statutory obligations, ETDA has adopted a softer regulatory approach to another significant platform issue: fees. Its Guideline on Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fees is intended as voluntary best practice rather than direct price regulation. The guideline does not prescribe maximum commissions or other charges. Instead, it focuses on whether users can understand what they are being charged, what services they receive in return, and how changes to those charges are made.

Platforms are encouraged to present fee information clearly and in an accessible manner, including an explanation of individual fee items, the services or benefits associated with them, and the basis or method used to calculate the charges. This is particularly relevant where the actual cost of participating on a platform extends beyond a headline commission and may include advertising, promotional, affiliate, payment-related, or other service fees. The regulatory concern is therefore not simply whether a particular commission is high or low, but whether users can reasonably determine and evaluate the overall economic cost of using the platform.

The guideline also addresses changes to platform fees. It recommends that users receive at least 15 days’ advance notice of fee changes, together with information concerning the reason for the change, its scope and potential impact, and channels for inquiries or feedback. The guideline also contemplates a consultation process in connection with fee changes. Platforms should therefore distinguish between merely notifying users that a fee will change and maintaining a process that reflects the broader principles of transparency, consultation, and fairness contemplated by the guideline.

Fairness extends beyond disclosure. Platforms are encouraged to avoid unnecessary duplication of charges and to distinguish clearly between compulsory fees and charges for additional services. Optional services should correspond to genuine additional benefits rather than becoming effectively mandatory through the design or operation of the platform. The objective is not direct government control of platform pricing, but a framework in which platforms can explain how fees are determined and users can understand the true costs of participating in the platform ecosystem.

From Voluntary Guidance to Legal Accountability:

Considered separately, the proposed Digital Platform Economy Act and the fee guideline address different regulatory issues. Considered together, however, they reveal a broader trajectory. The fee guideline represents soft regulation, under which regulators articulate expectations concerning fair market conduct and encourage platforms voluntarily to incorporate those principles into their business practices. The proposed legislation points toward harder regulatory intervention, potentially involving registration, disclosure, seller verification, statutory duties, enforcement mechanisms, and greater responsibility for consumer harm.

This distinction is important for businesses. Voluntary guidance should not necessarily be treated as irrelevant simply because it does not create directly enforceable obligations. Such guidance may establish regulatory expectations concerning reasonable industry conduct, identify practices receiving regulatory scrutiny, and indicate areas in which more formal intervention could eventually follow if voluntary measures prove insufficient.

The broader development is therefore not simply an increase in the number of rules applicable to digital platforms. It reflects a gradual change in the regulatory conception of the platform itself. As platforms exercise greater control over seller admission, product visibility, payment mechanisms, fees, and transactions, regulators increasingly expect them to accept corresponding responsibilities for how those ecosystems operate.

Preparing for the Next Stage of Platform Regulation:

Platform operators need not wait for the proposed legislation to be enacted before reviewing their compliance architecture. Seller onboarding and verification procedures should be assessed to determine what information is collected, how identities and business credentials are verified, how information is updated, and what happens when inaccurate information or unlawful activity is detected. Systems should also retain sufficient records to demonstrate that verification, monitoring, complaints, and enforcement procedures have actually been followed.

Fee structures warrant similar attention. Platforms should consider whether users can readily identify the overall economic cost of using their services and whether compulsory fees, optional services, promotional charges, advertising costs, and other charges are adequately explained. Procedures for changing fees should also be reviewed against the transparency, advance-notice, and consultation principles reflected in ETDA’s guideline.

Finally, contractual arrangements with sellers should be considered together with operational compliance. If the new legislation imposes independent statutory duties on platforms, contractual provisions allocating responsibility entirely to sellers may have limited effect against claims brought directly against the platform. Indemnities, suspension rights, seller information obligations, insurance arrangements, record keeping, and mechanisms for recovering losses should therefore form part of a broader risk-management framework rather than being treated as substitutes for regulatory compliance.

Key Takeaways:

  • Digital platform regulation is moving beyond registration and disclosure toward greater operational accountability.
  • The proposed Digital Platform Economy Act may expand requirements concerning platform registration, business information, seller verification, platform conduct, and consumer protection. Its final provisions should be monitored as the legislative process progresses.
  • Potential joint liability for consumer harm may be one of the most significant developments because it could alter the traditional allocation of responsibility between platforms and independent sellers.
  • ETDA’s fee guideline remains voluntary and does not constitute direct price regulation, but it establishes regulatory expectations concerning fee transparency, fairness, advance notice, and consultation.
  • Platform operators should consider reviewing seller verification, monitoring, fee disclosures, change-management procedures, contractual risk allocation, and record-keeping systems before the new statutory framework is finalized.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand-Australia Strategic Partnership 2026–2029: Advancing Cybersecurity, Economic Resilience, Cross-Border Crime Cooperation, and Support for SMEs and Startups

Earlier, Thailand’s Cabinet approved the Joint Plan of Action to Implement the Thailand-Australia Strategic Partnership for 2026–2029. The four-year framework succeeds the 2022–2025 Plan and will be signed during the Thai Prime Minister’s official visit to Australia on 17–20 August 2026. It reaffirms the Strategic Partnership elevated in 2020 and provides a practical roadmap for cooperation across five pillars: political and security affairs; economic and trade relations; sectoral collaboration; people-to-people links; and regional and sub-regional engagement (including ASEAN, the Mekong, and the Indo-Pacific).

Two accompanying Joint Statements—one on combating transnational crime and one on strengthening economic cooperation—were approved in parallel. Together they signal a pragmatic, results-oriented deepening of ties with direct relevance for businesses, technology firms, and innovation ecosystems in both countries.

Cybersecurity and Digital Cooperation within the Security Pillar:

The political and security pillar explicitly covers defense cooperation, non-traditional security challenges (including cyber), good governance, and critical technologies. This builds on the existing Memorandum of Understanding on Cyber and Digital Cooperation between Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That MoU promotes information exchange, best-practice sharing on cybersecurity strategies and laws, protection of critical infrastructure, and a secure, open internet that supports digital trade and innovation.

The new Plan is expected to operationalize these commitments further, creating opportunities for Australian cybersecurity providers, Thai digital-security firms, and joint public-private initiatives focused on threat intelligence, capacity building, and resilience of critical infrastructure. In a region facing rising cyber risks, closer bilateral alignment also strengthens Thailand’s position within ASEAN and Indo-Pacific cyber frameworks.

Joint Statement on Transnational Crime: Targeting Online Scams and Related Threats

The dedicated Joint Statement on combating transnational crime prioritizes online scams/fraud, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, and money laundering. Cooperation will proceed through bilateral channels and ASEAN mechanisms. This reflects the reality that sophisticated cyber-enabled crime—particularly large-scale online investment and romance scams operating from the region—has become a shared security and economic threat.

Existing operational links between the Royal Thai Police and the Australian Federal Police, including intelligence sharing and joint operations against cybercrime and financial crime networks, provide a foundation. The new Statement is likely to expand structured coordination, capacity building, and disruption of illicit financial flows. For the private sector this translates into stronger expectations around know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering compliance, potential public-private partnerships on fraud detection, and reduced exposure of legitimate businesses and consumers to scam ecosystems.

Economic and Trade Pillar: Resilience, Clean Energy, and Multilateral Trade:

The economic pillar emphasizes growth, resilient supply chains capable of withstanding global volatility, the clean-energy transition, and a robust multilateral trading system. It sits alongside long-standing instruments—the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the Strategic Economic Cooperation Arrangement (SECA), which was renewed in late 2025 through 2028.

Two-way goods and services trade reached approximately A$32.4 billion in 2025, underscoring the commercial weight of the relationship. The Plan and the parallel Joint Statement on economic cooperation are expected to facilitate further trade facilitation, agricultural collaboration, and digital-economy linkages while supporting diversification of supply chains.

Opportunities for SMEs and Startups:

Although the full Plan has not yet been published in detail, official summaries highlight support for startups and SMEs, particularly through science, technology, innovation, and digital cooperation. This continues themes already present in the original Strategic Partnership Declaration, which called for extensive digital-economy collaboration to accelerate business growth, including for startups and SMEs, and to develop a digital-ready workforce.

Sectoral cooperation under the Plan spans agriculture, education, climate action, energy, infrastructure, science and innovation, public health, environment, disaster management, and gender equality/social welfare. For technology-oriented SMEs and startups these areas open concrete avenues:

•  Digital and cyber solutions for agriculture, supply-chain resilience, and clean-energy systems.

•  Innovation partnerships, research collaboration, and technology transfer with Australian counterparts.

•  Access to capacity-building, skills development, and potential co-investment or market-entry support under SECA and related mechanisms.

•  Participation in people-to-people exchanges that build networks and talent pipelines.

Australian firms offering cybersecurity tools, digital platforms, agritech, cleantech, or fintech solutions, and Thai startups seeking capital, technology, or export pathways to Australia and the broader Indo-Pacific, stand to benefit from the clearer policy framework and high-level political endorsement.

Looking Ahead

The Joint Plan of Action is a political framework rather than a legally binding treaty. Its value will be realized through concrete projects, dialogues, and private-sector engagement after the formal signing in mid-August 2026. Businesses and legal practitioners should monitor implementing arrangements under the cyber MoU, SECA work programs, and any new working groups on digital economy, innovation, or transnational crime.

For companies operating at the intersection of technology, trade, and compliance, the 2026–2029 Plan reinforces Thailand-Australia cooperation as a practical platform for managing cyber risk, building resilient commercial relationships, and accessing opportunities in a strategically important bilateral partnership.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Moves Toward a Dedicated Regulatory Framework for Data Centers

Thailand may soon take a significant step toward regulating its rapidly expanding data center industry. According to recent reports, the government is preparing a Prime Minister’s Office Regulation that would establish a dedicated framework for overseeing data center operations, with particular emphasis on resource management, environmental impacts, and centralized regulatory oversight. While the proposed regulation has not yet been issued, it signals a potential shift from Thailand’s current investment-driven approach toward a more comprehensive regulatory model for the sector.

Background:

Thailand has become an increasingly attractive destination for data center investment due to strong government incentives, growing cloud adoption, and its strategic location in Southeast Asia. However, the rapid expansion of large-scale facilities has also raised concerns regarding infrastructure capacity, particularly electricity and water consumption.

According to the reported proposal, the government intends to introduce a dedicated regulatory mechanism to better coordinate oversight of the industry and manage its broader impacts on national resources.

Proposed regulatory framework:

The reported proposal indicates that the Prime Minister’s Office Regulation would establish a new committee responsible for supervising data center activities. Its responsibilities would reportedly include:

  • overseeing the overall development of the data center industry;
  • assessing the impacts of data center investments;
  • monitoring resource consumption, particularly electricity and water usage;
  • coordinating regulatory oversight among relevant government agencies; and
  • supervising approvals, permits, and compliance monitoring.

Although further details have not yet been published, the proposal suggests that the government intends to create a more centralized oversight structure than currently exists.

Addressing fragmented regulation:

At present, data center projects typically interact with multiple government agencies depending on the nature of the project. Investors may require approvals or incentives from different authorities, while utility arrangements are often negotiated separately.

The reported proposal appears intended to address this fragmented regulatory landscape by introducing a dedicated governance mechanism specifically focused on data centers.

Greater focus on infrastructure and resource management:

A notable feature of the proposal is its emphasis on resource planning.

According to the reports, the government has identified several concerns, including:

  • increasing electricity demand from large-scale data centers;
  • substantial water consumption required for cooling systems;
  • challenges in forecasting future resource demand; and
  • overlapping arrangements for water supply that may complicate national infrastructure planning.

The proposal therefore appears to reflect a policy objective of integrating data center development with broader infrastructure and environmental planning rather than regulating the industry solely from an investment perspective.

Different treatment for existing and future projects:

The reported framework would distinguish among three categories of data centers:

Existing operating facilities

Existing operators may become subject to audits or assessments focusing on matters such as resource consumption, temperature management, and noise impacts.

Approved projects under development

Projects that have already received approvals but are not yet operational may be required to comply with additional regulatory conditions before commencing operations.

Future applicants

New projects may become subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime addressing matters such as:

  • sustainable water management;
  • reserve water sources;
  • environmental impacts; and
  • measures designed to reduce adverse impacts on surrounding communities.

This tiered approach suggests that the government is seeking to avoid disrupting ongoing investments while progressively strengthening regulatory requirements for future developments.

Potential changes to location planning:

The reports also indicate that the government is considering a more strategic approach to determining where future data centers should be located.

Rather than concentrating additional facilities in existing investment hubs, policymakers are reportedly evaluating locations with stronger electricity and water infrastructure, including areas near major power generation facilities. The government has also indicated that supporting digital infrastructure, such as fiber-optic networks, could be expanded if new data center clusters are developed.

What investors should watch:

Although the proposal remains at the policy stage, investors and operators should monitor several issues as the framework develops:

  • the legal authority under which the new committee will operate;
  • whether additional licensing or approval requirements will be introduced;
  • technical standards relating to electricity, water use, and environmental impacts;
  • transitional requirements applicable to existing operators; and
  • the interaction between the new framework and existing approvals issued by sector-specific regulators.

The final regulatory approach will determine whether the proposed framework primarily serves as a coordination mechanism or introduces substantive compliance obligations for the industry.

Key takeaways:

  • Thailand is reportedly preparing a dedicated regulatory framework for data centers through a proposed Prime Minister’s Office Regulation.
  • The proposal reflects increasing government attention to electricity consumption, water usage, and environmental impacts associated with large-scale data center investments.
  • A new committee may be established to coordinate oversight of approvals, compliance, and resource management.
  • Existing facilities, projects under development, and future investments could become subject to different regulatory requirements.
  • Although the proposal has not yet been formally issued, investors planning data center projects in Thailand should closely monitor further regulatory developments, as they may significantly affect project planning, compliance obligations, and site selection.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

United States Finalizes Section 301 Tariff Framework Based on Forced Labor Enforcement: Thailand Subject to a 12.5% Tariff

In our previous article (USTR Section 301 Forced-Labor Determinations: Implications for Thailand – The Legal Co., Ltd.), we discussed the U.S. Section 301 investigation involving approximately 60 trading partners, including Thailand, and Thailand’s response to the proposed tariff measures through trade negotiations and domestic regulatory reforms.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR“) has now concluded that review, announcing the final tariff framework under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on 23 July 2026. The framework imposes additional tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on imports from approximately 60 trading partners, effective from 24 July 2026.

Although Thailand actively participated in the consultation process and sought both a reduction in the proposed tariff rate and additional product-specific exemptions, it remains subject to the higher 12.5% tariff, which took effect immediately upon the expiry of the preceding tariff measures.

The final framework is significant not only for the additional tariffs it introduces, but also for what it signals: the United States’ continued use of trade policy as a lever to address forced labor concerns and to encourage stronger labor standards and supply chain governance among its trading partners.

Overview of the Final Tariff Framework

The final framework adopts a tiered approach, with tariff rates determined by the USTR’s assessment of each trading partner’s efforts to prevent goods produced using forced labor from entering the U.S. market.

  • 10% tariff — applies to countries that (i) already prohibit imports of goods produced using forced labor, (ii) have committed to implementing such measures through reciprocal trade arrangements, or (iii) have introduced measures offering some protection against such imports. Countries in this category include Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United Kingdom.
  • 12.5% tariff — applies to countries the United States considers not to have implemented sufficiently effective measures to prevent goods produced using forced labor from entering U.S. supply chains. Thailand falls within this category, alongside China, Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam, among other trading partners.

According to the USTR, the final framework applies to trading partners representing approximately 99.4% of total U.S. imports. Certain products remain exempt, including oil, natural gas, and goods that cannot be sourced domestically in the United States.

Legal Significance

Beyond the tariff rates themselves, the legal basis for the framework carries equal significance.

According to publicly available reports, the United States introduced the final tariff framework after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tariffs previously imposed under emergency powers were unlawful. Rather than relying on those emergency powers, the U.S. government has instead invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the USTR to act against foreign government policies or practices considered unfair or burdensome to U.S. commerce.

This development demonstrates that, notwithstanding new limits on the use of emergency powers, the United States continues to rely on existing trade legislation to pursue its broader trade policy objectives. It also reflects a growing trend in which labor standards, human rights, and supply chain governance are increasingly treated as matters of international trade compliance, rather than solely as corporate social responsibility or ESG considerations.

Business Implications

The practical implications of the final tariff framework extend beyond the tariffs themselves.

Businesses exporting to the United States — including manufacturers, suppliers, and other participants in global supply chains — should expect increased requests from customers and business partners to demonstrate that their products are free from forced labor and that appropriate due diligence has been conducted throughout the supply chain.

Businesses should therefore consider:

  • reviewing supplier due diligence procedures;
  • strengthening supply chain traceability;
  • maintaining documentation on product origin and manufacturing processes; and
  • monitoring developments in U.S. trade policy, as well as Thailand’s proposed Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) framework.

Taking these steps early may help businesses respond more effectively to evolving customer expectations, reduce compliance risk, and minimize disruption to cross-border trade.

Key Considerations for Businesses

The final tariff framework reinforces the growing convergence between international trade policy, labor standards, and supply chain governance. While the immediate consequence is the additional 12.5% tariff imposed on imports from Thailand, the broader implication is that businesses should expect increasing scrutiny of their supply chains and rising expectations around responsible sourcing and human rights due diligence.

Businesses with operations or supply chains connected to the United States should review their existing compliance programmers, strengthen supplier due diligence and traceability measures, and continue monitoring regulatory developments in both the United States and Thailand to remain prepared for evolving trade compliance requirements.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Tomorrowland Thailand 2026: Business Opportunities and Operational Readiness for Local Investors

WeAreOne.World (Thailand) Co., Ltd., a Thai-Belgian joint venture, has received investment promotion approval from the Board of Investment (BOI) to organize Tomorrowland Thailand, a world-class electronic dance music (EDM) festival. The event will take place at Wisdom Valley, Chonburi Province, from December 11 to 13, 2026, marking the festival’s first-ever edition in Asia and featuring a star-studded lineup of internationally renowned artists and DJs.

The project is a joint venture between TL International BV, a subsidiary of the Belgium-based Tomorrowland Group, and Thailand’s One Asia Ventures Co., Ltd. TL International BV brings more than two decades of experience organizing EDM festivals worldwide, while One Asia Ventures has produced major music events in Thailand.

All 50,000 daily tickets — 150,000 in total across the three-day event — have officially sold out. Over 85% of attendees, or approximately 127,500 people, are expected to be international visitors, led by primary markets including Malaysia (8.5%), Singapore (7.5%), and Australia (6.5%), alongside secondary markets in Europe (8%) and the United States (3.5%).

Benefits for Thai Business Operators and Local Investors

The festival is projected to generate 6.13 billion Baht (approximately EUR 159 million) in immediate economic value, with a potential contribution exceeding 21,386 million Baht over its planned five-year run (2026–2030). This positions Thailand as a global event hub, driving revenue across hotels, accommodation, restaurants, transportation, and regional service providers.

1. Tourism, Hotels, and Accommodation Ticket sales have already driven more than 22,000 ticket-and-accommodation package bookings, along with over 250 pre and post-festival travel itineraries designed to extend visitor stays by one to two weeks. These offerings are well positioned to capture high-spending, long-stay travelers, allowing Thailand’s tourism sector to fully benefit from the event.

2. Creative and Music Industry Government representatives anticipate long-term advantages for Thailand’s creative sectors. By bringing world-class staging, acoustics, lighting, and visual production technology to the country, the event will give local designers and crew hands-on experience with international-standard setups — supporting Thailand’s long-term capability to host major global events.

3. Local Suppliers and Service Providers (Direct Impact) Event organizers will procure and contract directly with Thai suppliers and service providers, with an allocated budget exceeding 1,092 million Baht (EUR 28 million). This spans production and infrastructure, food and beverage, workforce and staffing, logistics and transportation, hospitality, venue management, and other local services.

4. Retail, Restaurant, and Transport Sector (Indirect Impact) Local businesses stand to benefit from more than 5,309 million Baht (EUR 131 million) in indirect economic circulation, generated by visitor spending on retail, local travel, and extended stays in neighboring provinces.

5. Job Creation The festival is expected to generate up to 21,386 jobs across tourism, events, logistics, and hospitality, beginning with 1,900 positions in its first year, with priority given to Thai personnel. Knowledge-transfer initiatives — including a DJ Academy and Festival Academy — will further build local expertise in festival management.

Preparation for Thai Business Operators and Investors

To capitalize effectively on the capital circulation generated by Tomorrowland Thailand, local businesses should prepare across five key areas:

1. Service Standards and Multilingual Support With international visitors making up the majority of attendees, hotel, restaurant, and transport operators should train staff in English and key ASEAN languages, and ensure full integration of international payment gateways (credit cards, digital wallets, and e-payment systems).

2. Long-Stay Travel Packages As the event falls in December, many attendees are likely to extend their stay by one to two weeks. Tourism operators in Chonburi, Rayong, and surrounding provinces — including Bangkok and Chiang Mai — should develop experiential travel packages, airport transfer services, and premium programs tailored to high-spending travelers.

3. Supplier and Production Readiness Businesses in events, production, lighting, audio, logistics, F&B, and security should upgrade operational, hygiene, and safety standards to international levels to compete for direct-procurement subcontracts. Commercial agreements should be drafted clearly and enforceably to protect business interests.

4. Cross-Border Business and Contractual Readiness Businesses pursuing joint ventures, co-branding, or merchandise sales at the event should establish robust JV agreement structures and carefully review trademark licensing requirements to avoid intellectual property infringement.

5. Regulatory Compliance Operators should review all applicable laws for large-scale festival operations and establish clear compliance frameworks, including:

  • Food, Beverage, and Alcohol Control Laws: Temporary liquor sales permits must be obtained from the Excise Department for on-site sales points, with strict age-verification (20 years and older, as required by law).
  • Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA): Operators collecting customer data, using ticket or room scanning systems, or capturing photos/video for promotional use must provide proper privacy notices and implement valid consent mechanisms.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner

Other Articles

on by

Negative Online Reviews and Defamation Claims: Lessons from a Recent Court of First Instance Decision

The proliferation of online review platforms has transformed the way consumers evaluate products and services. While positive reviews can enhance a business’s reputation, negative reviews—particularly those receiving significant online attention—may prompt businesses to consider legal action against dissatisfied customers. A recent judgment of a Thai Court of First Instance involving a dispute between a well-known bakery in Phuket and one of its customers provides a timely reminder of the legal and commercial considerations surrounding such claims.

The case has attracted considerable media attention because the bakery reportedly sought THB 5 million in damages after a customer posted a one-star review describing the cake as “not tasty” and “overpriced.” According to publicly available reports, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claim. As the judgment is that of the Court of First Instance, it may still be subject to appeal and should not yet be regarded as the final judicial position.

Background:

According to publicly available information, the dispute arose after a customer posted a one-star review on an online platform expressing dissatisfaction with the bakery’s products, commenting that the cake was not tasty and that the price was excessive.

The bakery subsequently contacted the customer requesting that the review be removed and later commenced legal proceedings seeking approximately THB 5 million in damages. The dispute quickly gained widespread attention on social media, generating extensive public discussion regarding the balance between consumer rights and protection of business reputation.

In July 2026, the Court of First Instance reportedly dismissed the bakery’s claim. Although the full written judgment has not yet been publicly circulated, the outcome has reignited debate regarding the extent to which businesses may rely on litigation in response to unfavourable online reviews.

The Growing Legal Challenge of Online Reviews:

Online reviews have become an integral part of modern commerce. Consumers frequently rely on reviews when selecting restaurants, hotels, healthcare providers, retailers and other service providers. At the same time, businesses increasingly view online reputation as a valuable commercial asset.

Consequently, disputes arising from customer reviews have become more common. While businesses are entitled to protect themselves against false and malicious allegations, not every negative review will give rise to a viable legal claim.

The recent dispute illustrates the importance of carefully distinguishing between statements that constitute protected opinion and those that may amount to actionable false statements of fact.

Opinion Versus Statements of Fact:

One of the central legal issues in disputes involving online reviews is whether the impugned statement represents a factual assertion or merely an expression of personal opinion.

Comments such as:

  • “I did not enjoy the cake”;
  • “The cake was overpriced”; or
  • “I would not return”

are generally subjective evaluations reflecting an individual’s personal experience.

By contrast, statements alleging objectively verifiable facts—such as accusations that a business uses unsafe ingredients, engages in fraudulent practices or violates legal requirements—may expose the reviewer to greater legal risk if such allegations are false and cause reputational harm.

This distinction is fundamental because courts generally recognize that consumers are entitled to express honestly held opinions regarding products and services, even where those opinions are critical.

Defamation Claims Require More Than Mere Dissatisfaction:

The case also serves as a reminder that a business seeking damages bears the burden of establishing the legal elements of its claim.

In practice, commencing legal proceedings simply because a review is unfavourable does not guarantee success. The claimant must establish the applicable legal requirements, including any necessary evidence regarding the allegedly unlawful statements and the resulting damage.

Where a review reflects a genuine customer experience rather than fabricated allegations, litigation may present significant evidentiary challenges.

Commercial Risks of Suing Customers:

Apart from legal considerations, businesses should also consider the broader commercial implications before commencing proceedings against customers.

Litigation concerning online reviews often attracts media attention that substantially exceeds the visibility of the original review itself. The dispute may be widely shared across social media platforms, leading to increased public scrutiny and reputational consequences that outweigh the impact of the initial criticism.

This phenomenon—often referred to internationally as the “Streisand Effect”—illustrates how attempts to suppress criticism may unintentionally amplify it.

Businesses should therefore carefully assess whether legal proceedings represent the most effective strategy for protecting their reputation.

Practical Considerations for Businesses:

Before initiating legal proceedings over an online review, businesses should consider:

  • whether the review constitutes a subjective opinion or an objectively false factual allegation;
  • whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the legal elements of a claim;
  • whether direct engagement with the customer may resolve the dispute without litigation;
  • whether the anticipated reputational consequences of litigation outweigh the potential legal remedies; and
  • whether alternative reputation management strategies may better serve the business’s long-term interests.

Legal action remains an appropriate response in cases involving knowingly false accusations, malicious campaigns or fabricated reviews. However, proceedings should generally be undertaken only after careful assessment of both the legal merits and the wider commercial implications.

Looking Ahead:

Although the recent dispute has generated substantial public interest, it is important to recognize that the reported decision is a judgment of the Court of First Instance. Unless and until the appellate process is exhausted or the appeal period expires, the judgment should not be treated as representing the final legal position.

Nevertheless, the case highlights an increasingly important issue for businesses operating in Thailand. As online reviews continue to influence consumer behaviour, businesses should develop appropriate internal strategies for responding to criticism, balancing the protection of commercial reputation with the legal rights of consumers to express honest opinions regarding their experiences.

Key Takeaways:

  • A negative online review does not automatically constitute unlawful defamation or give rise to a successful claim for damages.
  • Businesses should carefully distinguish between subjective opinions and objectively verifiable factual allegations before considering legal action.
  • Litigation over customer reviews may generate significant reputational and commercial consequences independent of the legal outcome.
  • The recent Phuket bakery dispute was decided by the Court of First Instance, and the decision may still be subject to appeal.
  • Businesses should adopt a measured and evidence-based approach to online reputation management, reserving litigation for cases involving genuinely false or malicious statements.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner

Other Articles

on by

Integrating Cybersecurity, Fraud Response, and PDPA Compliance: Practical Implications of the Proposed Digital Channel Security Framework

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released a proposed Digital Channel Security framework that would strengthen expectations for authentication, fraud prevention, incident response, and the governance of digital financial services. While the proposal focuses primarily on enhancing the security and resilience of digital channels, financial institutions should not view these requirements in isolation.

In practice, a single cybersecurity incident frequently triggers multiple legal and regulatory obligations simultaneously. For example, an account takeover resulting from a phishing attack may require an institution to activate its cybersecurity incident response procedures, implement fraud mitigation measures, assess whether a personal data breach has occurred under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), evaluate outsourcing or third-party service provider involvement, and make appropriate internal and regulatory notifications.

Although these obligations arise from different legal and regulatory sources, organizations may benefit from managing them through a coordinated incident response framework. This article examines the practical implications of the proposed BOT framework alongside existing obligations under the PDPA and broader operational governance practices.

From cybersecurity to operational resilience:

The proposed framework reflects an increasing regulatory emphasis on operational resilience rather than viewing cybersecurity solely as an information technology function. It places greater focus on preventing, detecting, responding to, and recovering from threats affecting digital financial services while maintaining the continuity and integrity of critical operations.

At the same time, financial institutions should recognize that cybersecurity incidents rarely occur in isolation. A single event may involve operational disruption, attempted fraud, compromise of customer credentials, unauthorized disclosure of personal data, and third-party service providers. As a practical matter, organizations may therefore benefit from adopting governance arrangements capable of addressing these interconnected risks through a unified response process.

Governance beyond information technology:

The proposed framework emphasizes that responsibility for digital channel security extends beyond information security teams.

Boards of directors and senior management are expected to establish appropriate governance, oversee digital risks, allocate adequate resources, monitor security performance, and ensure that significant incidents are escalated appropriately.

From a broader governance perspective, institutions should also consider ensuring that legal, compliance, privacy, operational risk, business continuity, and customer service functions are integrated into incident management processes. This cross-functional approach can help organizations address multiple regulatory obligations efficiently when significant incidents occur.

Fraud prevention as part of digital channel security:

The BOT proposal places significant emphasis on fraud prevention through enhanced digital channel security. Proposed measures include stronger customer authentication, monitoring of suspicious activities, behavioral analysis, device identification, protection against phishing and social engineering attacks, and mechanisms for responding to suspicious transactions.

These expectations primarily seek to reduce fraud risks affecting digital financial services. However, successful fraud attacks frequently have wider legal implications. Unauthorized access to customer accounts may also involve compromised personal data, contractual issues with service providers, customer remediation, and regulatory reporting obligations. Institutions should therefore consider integrating fraud response procedures into broader cybersecurity governance rather than treating fraud management as a separate operational function.

Incident response across multiple regulatory frameworks:

The proposed framework expects institutions to establish formal incident response procedures covering detection, escalation, containment, investigation, recovery, and post-incident review.

In practice, these procedures should also enable organizations to identify other legal and regulatory obligations that may arise from the same incident. Depending on the circumstances, an incident may require parallel consideration of fraud management, operational resilience measures, contractual obligations, outsourcing arrangements, and personal data protection requirements.

Developing coordinated response procedures may help reduce duplication of effort, improve decision-making, and ensure that regulatory obligations are addressed consistently across different functions.

Interaction with the Personal Data Protection Act:

The proposed BOT framework does not replace or modify existing obligations under the PDPA. Rather, the two regimes operate alongside one another.

Where a cybersecurity incident involves unauthorized access to, disclosure of, alteration of, or loss of personal data, organizations should assess their obligations under the PDPA independently of the BOT framework. This may include determining whether a personal data breach has occurred, evaluating notification obligations, preserving relevant evidence, documenting response measures, and implementing appropriate remediation.

Accordingly, organizations may wish to ensure that privacy officers, legal counsel, and cybersecurity teams participate jointly in incident response planning and tabletop exercises so that both operational and data protection considerations are addressed from the outset.

Third-party risk management:

Digital financial services increasingly depend on cloud service providers, payment processors, managed service providers, software vendors, and other external partners.

The proposed framework reinforces expectations regarding oversight of third-party service providers throughout the outsourcing lifecycle. Institutions should conduct appropriate due diligence, establish contractual security requirements, monitor vendor performance, and ensure that incident reporting and business continuity arrangements are clearly defined.

Because cybersecurity incidents involving third parties may also raise fraud and personal data protection issues, organizations should consider aligning vendor management processes with their broader incident response and compliance frameworks.

Documentation and evidence of compliance:

The proposed framework places considerable emphasis on governance, accountability, and demonstrating that appropriate controls are in place.

Organizations should maintain comprehensive records of cybersecurity governance, risk assessments, incident response activities, testing, training, vendor oversight, and business continuity exercises. From a broader compliance perspective, documentation should also support obligations arising under other applicable legal frameworks, including the PDPA and contractual commitments relating to outsourced services.

Maintaining complete records may facilitate regulatory engagement, internal investigations, and post-incident reviews while demonstrating that reasonable organizational and technical measures have been implemented.

Practical considerations:

As organizations prepare for the proposed framework, they may wish to assess not only technical cybersecurity controls but also how different compliance functions interact during a significant incident.

Areas for review may include:

  • governance and board oversight;
  • coordination among cybersecurity, legal, compliance, privacy, and operational teams;
  • fraud detection and response procedures;
  • customer authentication controls;
  • third-party risk management;
  • incident reporting and escalation processes;
  • documentation and recordkeeping; and
  • operational resilience testing and tabletop exercises.

An integrated approach may improve organizational readiness while reducing the risk that separate regulatory obligations are managed through disconnected processes.

Key takeaways:

  • The proposed BOT Digital Channel Security framework primarily addresses digital channel security, fraud prevention, governance, and operational resilience.
  • Existing obligations under the PDPA continue to apply independently where cybersecurity incidents involve personal data.
  • A single cyber incident may simultaneously trigger cybersecurity, fraud management, personal data protection, outsourcing, and operational governance obligations.
  • Although these obligations arise under different legal and regulatory frameworks, organizations may benefit from managing them through an integrated incident response framework.
  • Financial institutions should consider reviewing governance structures, cross-functional coordination, and documentation practices to improve operational resilience and regulatory compliance.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner

Other Articles

on by

PDPA Insights: Building Effective Privacy Governance

PDPA: AI Is Not Replacing Privacy Law—It Is Changing How We Apply It

Artificial intelligence has rapidly become part of everyday business operations. Recommendation engines personalize online shopping experiences, chatbots answer customer enquiries, fraud detection systems identify suspicious transactions, recruitment platforms screen job applicants, and generative AI assists with customer service, marketing and document preparation.

As AI adoption accelerates, organizations frequently ask whether the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) contains special rules governing AI.

The answer is both simple and nuanced.

Thailand’s PDPA does not establish a standalone regulatory framework for artificial intelligence. Unlike some jurisdictions that have introduced AI-specific legislation, the PDPA remains technology neutral. The same legal principles governing all personal data processing—including lawfulness, purpose limitation, transparency, data minimization, security, and accountability—continue to apply regardless of whether personal data is processed manually or through sophisticated AI systems.

Nevertheless, the Personal Data Protection Committee’s (PDPC) recent consultation on marketing and direct marketing demonstrates that the regulator increasingly recognizes AI-assisted personalization, profiling, and automated decision-making as ordinary components of modern business operations rather than exceptional technologies. This signals an important evolution in regulatory expectations. The question is no longer whether AI falls within the scope of the PDPA. Instead, organizations should consider how existing privacy principles should operate when personal data is processed at unprecedented speed and scale.

AI changes the scale—not the legal principles:

One misconception is that AI requires an entirely new compliance framework.

In reality, the core legal questions remain familiar.

Why is personal data being processed?

Is there an appropriate legal basis?

Have individuals been informed?

Is the processing proportionate?

Are appropriate safeguards in place?

These questions existed before AI and remain the foundation of PDPA compliance.

What AI changes is the scale and complexity of those questions.

A marketing employee might manually analyze one hundred customer records to recommend products.

An AI system may analyze ten million records every day, continuously refining customer profiles and generating individualized recommendations without direct human intervention.

The legal principles remain the same.

The governance challenge becomes significantly greater.

Organizations should focus on the processing—not the technology:

Discussions about AI frequently focus on algorithms.

Privacy law focuses on personal data.

Organizations should therefore avoid beginning compliance discussions with technical questions such as:

“Are we using AI?”

Instead, they should ask:

“How is personal data being collected, analyzed, combined, retained and disclosed?”

This shift in perspective has practical consequences.

An AI system recommending products based upon purchasing history raises different privacy considerations from an AI system screening job applicants or detecting fraudulent transactions.

The technology may be identical.

The processing purposes are not.

Organizations should therefore evaluate each AI use case separately rather than adopting a single enterprise-wide conclusion regarding AI compliance.

Profiling is becoming an ordinary business activity:

One of the most significant aspects of the PDPC’s recent consultation is the inclusion of profiling alongside AI-assisted marketing and automated decision-making.

This reflects commercial reality.

Retailers profile customers to recommend products.

Banks profile spending behaviour to identify suitable financial services.

Hotels profile travel patterns.

Streaming platforms profile viewing preferences.

Insurance companies profile claims histories.

Profiling has become routine.

The regulatory focus is therefore shifting away from asking whether profiling exists toward examining whether organizations understand, govern and explain how profiling operates.

Transparency becomes particularly important where profiling materially influences commercial decisions affecting individuals.

Explainability is becoming a governance issue:

Many AI systems are capable of generating sophisticated outputs while providing limited insight into how those outputs were produced.

This creates a practical challenge.

Organizations may be able to explain what an AI system does without fully understanding why it reached a particular recommendation.

The PDPA does not require organizations to explain complex algorithms.

However, organizations should be capable of explaining much more fundamental issues.

What personal data does the AI system use?

Why is that information necessary?

What business objective does the system support?

Who reviews significant outputs?

What safeguards exist to identify inappropriate outcomes?

These governance questions are likely to become increasingly important as AI adoption expands.

Vendor governance is becoming AI governance:

Few organizations develop AI systems internally.

Most rely on external providers.

Large language models.

Cloud AI services.

Marketing automation platforms.

Customer relationship management systems.

Fraud detection software.

Human resources platforms.

Consequently, AI governance increasingly depends upon vendor governance.

Organizations should understand:

  • where personal data is processed;
  • whether overseas transfers occur;
  • whether providers use customer data to train models;
  • whether subcontractors process personal data;
  • how security is maintained;
  • how long information is retained.

Vendor due diligence therefore becomes an essential component of AI governance under the PDPA.

Human oversight still matters:

AI enables organizations to automate decisions at unprecedented scale.

Automation, however, should not eliminate accountability.

Organizations should identify situations where meaningful human review remains appropriate.

Examples may include:

  1. rejecting employment applications;
  2. detecting suspected fraud;
  3. evaluating insurance claims;
  4. determining customer eligibility for significant commercial benefits.

The appropriate level of oversight will depend upon the context and the potential impact on individuals.

Organizations should therefore design governance frameworks that ensure AI supports decision-making without entirely replacing human judgement where significant interests are involved.

AI governance is ultimately privacy governance:

Perhaps the most important lesson is that organizations should resist creating isolated AI compliance programs.

Instead, AI should be incorporated into existing privacy governance.

Records of Processing Activities should identify AI-supported processing.

Privacy notices should accurately describe AI-related processing where appropriate.

Legal basis assessments should consider AI processing explicitly.

Vendor management should address AI providers.

Privacy impact assessments should evaluate AI risks.

Training programs should include AI governance.

In other words, organizations should integrate AI into their existing accountability framework rather than building a separate compliance structure.

Looking ahead:

Artificial intelligence will continue to reshape business operations.

The more significant challenge under the PDPA, however, is unlikely to be the technology itself.

It will be governance.

Organizations capable of explaining why AI is used, what personal data supports it, how risks are managed, and how decisions remain accountable are likely to be better prepared than organizations focusing exclusively on technical innovation.

The PDPC’s recent consultation suggests that this is the direction in which Thailand’s privacy regime is evolving. AI is becoming an ordinary business tool. As a result, organizations should treat AI governance as an ordinary component of privacy governance.

Key takeaways:

  1. The PDPA does not establish separate legal principles for AI; existing privacy obligations continue to apply regardless of the technology used.
  2. AI increases the scale and complexity of personal data processing but does not replace the need for lawful basis, transparency, purpose limitation, and accountability.
  3. Organizations should assess individual AI use cases rather than treating all AI deployments identically.
  4. Profiling and AI-assisted decision-making are becoming mainstream regulatory concerns and should be supported by appropriate governance and transparency.
  5. Vendor management is increasingly inseparable from AI governance because many AI capabilities are provided by third-party platforms.

The organizations best prepared for future regulation will be those that integrate AI into existing privacy governance rather than treating it as a separate compliance project.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Related Articles in the “PDPA Insights: Building Effective Privacy Governance” Series

on by

Consumer Enforcement Intensifies for EV Businesses as Complaint Cases Rise and Labeling Expectations Increase

Thailand’s consumer protection regulator has signaled a more assertive enforcement approach toward the electric vehicle (EV) sector through two related developments. First, it has indicated its readiness to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of consumers in appropriate EV dispute cases. Second, it has issued new guidance consolidating labeling requirements for automobiles, electric vehicles, and used cars.

Although neither development introduces new legislation, together they demonstrate heightened regulatory scrutiny of the automotive industry and provide valuable insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. Manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers, service centers, and online vehicle marketplaces should treat these developments as an opportunity to reassess their compliance and dispute management frameworks.

Increased Enforcement Risk from EV Consumer Complaints:

The Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has reported a significant number of consumer complaints relating to electric vehicles, with a substantial portion already progressing through legal procedures. The agency has confirmed that it has begun issuing formal demand letters in cases supported by sufficient documentation and has reiterated its statutory authority to commence legal proceedings on behalf of consumers where the legal requirements are satisfied.

This represents an important enforcement signal. Rather than merely facilitating mediation between consumers and businesses, the regulator has indicated its willingness to escalate suitable cases into formal litigation.

The risk is particularly significant where multiple complaints arise from the same product model, manufacturing issue, software defect, battery performance concern, warranty practice, or recurring after-sales service problem. A pattern of similar complaints may increase regulatory attention and expose businesses to coordinated enforcement actions, representative litigation, or broader product liability claims.

Businesses operating within the EV supply chain should therefore review whether existing complaint-handling mechanisms are capable of identifying systemic issues before they evolve into regulatory investigations or court proceedings.

Strengthened Expectations for Vehicle Label Compliance:

Separately, the OCPB has published an electronic handbook consolidating labeling requirements applicable to automobiles, electric vehicles, and used vehicles.

The publication emphasizes information that consumers commonly rely upon when making purchasing decisions, including battery specifications, driving range, testing standards, pricing information, warranty coverage, and the disclosure of material vehicle history for used vehicles.

Although the handbook itself is not legally binding, it provides a clear indication of the regulator’s compliance expectations. It reinforces that automobiles and electric vehicles remain controlled labeling products under consumer protection law and that incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information may expose businesses to regulatory enforcement.

The guidance also illustrates that compliance extends beyond physical labels. Regulators are increasingly likely to examine whether information presented across all customer-facing channels remains accurate and consistent.

Businesses should therefore review:

  • labels displayed at dealerships and points of sale;
  • information published on corporate websites and online marketplaces;
  • brochures and sales presentations used by sales personnel;
  • representations concerning driving range and the testing methodology used, such as WLTP or NEDC;
  • battery capacity, expected degradation, warranty scope, and warranty exclusions;
  • disclosures relating to collision history, flood damage, major repairs, and battery replacement for used vehicles; and
  • consistency between information published by manufacturers, importers, dealers, and affiliated sales channels.

Claims relating to vehicle performance, battery longevity, operating costs, sustainability, resale value, or environmental benefits should be supported by appropriate technical evidence and internal documentation before publication.

Litigation Readiness and Document Preservation:

These developments also highlight the importance of litigation preparedness.

Businesses should consider establishing a centralized process for collecting and analyzing customer complaints to determine whether recurring issues indicate broader product or service risks.

At the same time, organizations should preserve relevant evidence, including:

  • sales documentation;
  • warranty records;
  • repair histories;
  • technical diagnostic reports;
  • replacement part records;
  • communications with customers;
  • call center recordings;
  • email correspondence;
  • mobile application records; and
  • connected vehicle diagnostic data.

Where disputes may reasonably be anticipated, organizations should consider implementing litigation hold procedures to reduce the risk of inadvertent deletion of potentially relevant evidence.

Companies should also review contractual risk allocation among overseas manufacturers, importers, dealers, distributors, and service centers, including indemnity provisions and responsibilities for handling product defects, recalls, warranty claims, and consumer litigation.

Data Protection Considerations:

Responding to consumer complaints frequently requires the collection and sharing of customer information, vehicle service histories, location information, and connected vehicle diagnostic data. Much of this information may constitute personal data under the Personal Data Protection Act.

Organizations should ensure that internal investigations and litigation response procedures incorporate appropriate data governance measures, including clearly defined access controls, documented processing purposes, retention periods, and secure mechanisms for sharing information with external counsel, technical experts, and other authorized parties.

Integrating consumer protection compliance with data governance can reduce both regulatory and litigation risks while supporting more effective dispute management.

Key Takeaways:

  • Organizations should strengthen complaint management, evidence preservation, document retention, contractual risk allocation, and data governance processes to prepare for increased regulatory scrutiny and potential consumer litigation.
  • The OCPB’s indication that it is prepared to commence litigation on behalf of consumers represents a significant escalation in consumer protection enforcement affecting the EV industry.
  • Businesses should not view repeated consumer complaints as isolated customer service matters but as potential regulatory and litigation risks requiring centralized oversight.
  • The newly published vehicle labeling handbook, although not legally binding, demonstrates higher regulatory expectations regarding the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of vehicle-related information across all sales channels.
  • Automotive businesses should review advertising claims, warranty disclosures, battery-related representations, and used vehicle disclosures to ensure they are fully substantiated.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

TCCT Establishes Two Subcommittees to Strengthen Trade Competition Oversight

The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT”) has appointed two subcommittees to oversee digital platform businesses and to establish competition rules for modern wholesale and retail businesses (“Modern Trade”). The move is intended to curb unfair trade practices and strengthen law enforcement in step with rapidly evolving trade dynamics.

1. Subcommittee on Considering Guidelines for the Oversight and Deterrence of Trade Practices in Digital Platform Businesses

This subcommittee’s primary mandate is to study, analyze, and collect data on the business models, commercial conditions, and trade practices of digital platform businesses, and to assess their impact on trade competition, business operators, consumers, and other stakeholders. It will drive more intensive regulatory measures for digital platform businesses and prepare proposals, guidelines, codes of conduct, criteria, announcements, regulations, and policy recommendations for the TCCT’s consideration.

The subcommittee will also coordinate with government agencies, the private sector, business operators, and other relevant stakeholders across all sectors to oversee and deter trade practices that may affect competition in digital platform businesses, and to promote free and fair competition more broadly.

2. Subcommittee on Determining Guidelines and Action Plans Regarding Competitive Conditions in Modern Wholesale and Retail Businesses

This subcommittee is tasked with studying, analyzing, and monitoring the market structure of modern wholesale and retail businesses; building a database to analyze retail market concentration and its impact on small-scale operators; and recommending guidelines and measures for overseeing competition in the retail sector.

Objectives of the Subcommittees

The subcommittees will study trade practices in digital platforms and in the modern wholesale-retail market to keep pace with shifting business dynamics and to investigate practices with anti-competitive effects. Each subcommittee will determine oversight guidelines and accelerate the promotion of fair trade so all parties can compete on equal terms.

The subcommittees will integrate efforts across relevant agencies, apply existing law to address exploitation or competitive pressure affecting the majority of business operators nationwide, and enforce compliance with guidelines the TCCT has already issued — notably the TCCT Notification on Guidelines for Considering Unfair Trade Practices and Acts that Monopolize, Reduce, or Restrict Competition in Multi-Sided Platform Business Operations for Digital Platform Services of Goods or Services (E-Commerce), in effect since March 25, 2026. They will also continue overseeing platform service businesses and Modern Trade going forward.

Background

Rapidly shifting competitive conditions and an influx of foreign capital have affected domestic operators, particularly SMEs and small-scale retailers. This has driven a sharp rise in complaints to the TCCT concerning online trading practices and the expansion of retail formats into community areas.

A particular concern is the continued increase in Gross Profit (GP) fees — the revenue-share or fee percentages that merchants pay to platforms. Higher GP rates compress net margins for SMEs, which may in turn force price increases that are ultimately passed on to consumers.

According to TCCT data:

  • E-commerce platforms and Modern Trade are currently among the leading competition concerns for small-scale operators at the grassroots of the Thai economy. In the first six months of this year alone, 21 platform-related complaints were filed, involving transactions collectively worth hundreds of billions of baht.
  • During fiscal year 2025 (October 1, 2024 – September 30, 2025), the TCCT received 78 complaints in total. Of these, 40 were not accepted for consideration, 9 were settled, and the remaining 29 are under investigation — most involving platforms, franchises, logistics and transport, digital platforms, and general commerce.

Through its Mobile Competition Clinic project, the TCCT has previously conducted on-site visits in several provinces to hear directly from business operators. Findings included:

Krabi Province:

  1. Online platform issues, including being forced to use specific transport providers and reduced product visibility due to algorithmic ranking.
  2. Online Travel Agency (OTA) platform issues, including price-parity clauses that prohibit hotels from listing lower rates on their own websites than on OTAs.
  3. Unfair trade practices between SMEs and Modern Trade operators, including redundant fee charges and additional GP fees imposed without prior notice.
  4. Palm oil pricing structure issues affecting local farmers.

Chiang Mai and Lamphun Provinces:

  1. Online platform issues, including algorithmic ranking practices that favor a platform’s own affiliated transport services.
  2. Unfair trade practices between SMEs and Modern Trade operators, including credit-term disputes, GP fee collection, and unfair contract terms.
  3. Pricing issues in agricultural product procurement.

Current Priorities and Enforcement Timeline

The TCCT is accelerating proactive oversight across four key business groups: (1) digital platforms, (2) wholesale and Modern Trade, (3) ride-hailing platform services, and (4) online travel booking platforms (OTAs). The newly formed subcommittees will study, analyze, and propose oversight guidelines, and investigate practices affecting competition across all four groups, with findings due by the fourth quarter of 2026. This will include updated operational guidelines designed to keep pace with evolving trade practices.

This initiative marks a deliberate shift in the TCCT’s enforcement approach — from a largely reactive, complaint-driven model to proactive market inspections that do not wait for formal complaints. On-site visits to gather in-depth input from business operators will remain central to this approach, with the TCCT aiming to demonstrate tangible results within the next six months.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles