Thailand has taken another step toward liberalizing its foreign business framework, exempting additional service activities and derivatives brokerage or agency businesses from the licensing requirements of the Foreign Business Act (FBA). Since the FBA came into effect, Thailand has taken a measured approach to opening its economy to foreign investment. While the FBA regulates foreign participation in businesses that may affect domestic interests, the framework has also evolved to allow foreign participation in certain business activities where sector-specific laws and regulatory frameworks already provide sufficient oversight, making additional FBA restrictions unnecessary. This is particularly true where Thai businesses are sufficiently capable of competing in certain service sectors, or where liberalization is intended to facilitate the provision of services among companies within the same corporate group. Against this backdrop, two new ministerial regulations have been issued pursuant to the FBA. Service Businesses Under the FBA Under the FBA, certain categories of business are restricted for foreign operators. List 3 of the FBA sets out businesses that foreigners may operate only if they obtain a foreign business license (FBL) or a foreign business certificate (FBC), or unless a specific exemption applies. List 3 (21) covers “other service businesses,” which is a catch-all provision that captures a wide range of service businesses not specifically enumerated elsewhere in the FBA. In practice, this means that most service activities carried on by foreigners in Thailand require an FBL or FBC unless otherwise exempted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the FBA provides a mechanism to address this breadth by empowering the Minister of Commerce to issue ministerial regulations excluding specific types of service businesses from List Three (21). Once a service business is so excluded, foreigners may operate it without obtaining an FBL or FBC. Prior to the new regulations, four ministerial regulations had been issued to

Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including

When considering a franchise, many people first think of a restaurant, retail chain, or service outlet. From a legal perspective, however, the foundation of every franchise lies in the right to use a brand, which is typically granted through a trademark license. Trademarks are often the most valuable assets in a franchise system. Through a trademark license, a franchisor authorizes a franchisee to use its trademarks, logos, and branding while maintaining control over how the brand is presented to customers. The Role of Trademarks in Franchise Businesses Under the Trademark Law 2019, a mark is defined as a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others in the course of trade. This distinguishing function is particularly important in a franchise arrangement, where the franchisee’s use of the franchisor’s trademark allows consumers to recognize the source, quality, and reputation of the business. In this way, trademarks help preserve brand identity, strengthen market recognition, and protect the commercial value of the franchise system. Legal Foundation for Franchise Brand Protection Myanmar presently does not have a specific statutory framework governing franchise arrangements. As a result, franchise agreements are generally regulated under the broader applicable legal framework, including the Contract Act 1872, the Trademark Law 2019, the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, and the relevant implementing rules and regulations. The licensing of trademarks within a franchise arrangement is particularly governed by the Trademark Law 2019. Franchisors should ensure that the trademarks intended to be licensed to franchisees in Myanmar are registered under the Trademark Law 2019 and that the relevant trademark license is properly recorded with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD). Trademark License Recordal Under the Trademark Law 2019, the owner of a registered trademark may grant a license to another

It is generally understood that patents are granted for new designs that have not been widely known or used in Thailand and not been disclosed anywhere prior to the date of the patent application. It is trite law that design law protects the distinctive appearance or products. Under Section 3 of the Thai Patent Act B.E. 2522, as amended by the Patent Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 and the Patent Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542, a design is defined as “any form or composition of lines or colors that gives a product a special appearance and can serve as a pattern for an industrial or handicraft product.” This raises an important question. Can a patent be issued for a product design that contains text, numerals, trademarks, or symbols that do not fall under the definition of a design? This issue commonly arises when attempting to register packaging, labels, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs). Until a few years ago, applicants could file design applications with the Thai Patent Office for designs that contained such elements, provided that an appropriate disclaimer was included. This practice was generally accepted by Thai design examiners at that time, but the Patent Office has since implemented a change in its practice that could have a significant impact on applicants for design patents. Where design representations are submitted as line drawings or computer-aided design (CAD) drawings, the examiner may now issue an office action requiring their removal. This practice, however, appears to be applied inconsistently, as some examiners still exercise their own discretion in determining whether drawings containing these elements are acceptable. Below are examples of a GUI design, a CAD drawing design, and a photographic design representation that illustrates issues relating to the presence of nonallowable elements. GUI design For this GUI design, the submitted

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public feedback on a proposed overhaul of the regulatory framework for licensed money changers authorized by the finance minister, under the Exchange Control Act, to buy and sell foreign banknotes separately from commercial banks and specialized financial institutions. The BOT published the draft principles on August 19, 2026, for public consultation, with comments accepted through September 18, 2026. If adopted in its current form, the new framework would substantially raise licensing standards, require existing licensees to undergo a review and upgrade process, temporarily freeze new applications in 2027, and reduce application intake rounds from 2028 onward, with significant implications for both existing operators and prospective new entrants. The overhaul initiative stems from the BOT’s recognition of a need to prevent the use of licensed money changers as channels for financial crime. The stated objectives are to build public confidence, ensure the safety of financial service users, and align the supervisory framework with the current risk profile of the business and evolving market conditions. Upgraded Licensing Standards The BOT intends to significantly revise the licensing framework, including requirements relating to registered capital, branch management, operational standards, and customer transaction limits. Detailed criteria have not yet been released and are expected to be subject to further consultation. All existing licensees will be required to upgrade to meet the new standards and submit evidence of compliance for BOT review on a case-by-case basis. Existing licensees that are unable to satisfy the upgraded requirements may face regulatory consequences, subject to the final framework and BOT review process. Freeze and Reopening The BOT will temporarily stop accepting new license applications throughout 2027 to focus resources on inspecting and upgrading existing money changers. Any party wishing to obtain a new money changer license must submit its application by

On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Interior issued an urgent circular letter (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 19097) to all provincial governors, introducing enhanced enforcement guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of suspected nominee landownership by foreign nationals. The circular letter builds upon a prior circular letter issued on April 19, 2023 (No. MorTor 0515.2/Wor 7665), which first established the framework for provincial-level investigation committees and interagency cooperation on this issue. Under Thailand’s Land Code, foreign nationals are generally prohibited from owning land. To circumvent this restriction, some foreign nationals have historically used Thai nominees, whether individuals or Thai-registered juristic persons, to hold land on their behalf. Various government enforcement measures have been progressively strengthened in recent years. The new circular letter introduces three key measures: Expanded investigation committees. Provincial authorities must add representatives from specialized investigative agencies (such as local police superintendents) to the existing Fact-Finding and Investigation Committees, giving them broader access to shareholding data, tax records, immigration information, financial records, and evidentiary materials. Proactive screening of juristic persons. Provincial Land Offices are now required to actively screen and flag juristic persons (companies, partnerships, etc.) that show risk indicators of acting as nominees for foreign land ownership. The screening results must be referred to the investigation committees, which will determine whether the entity qualifies as a “foreign national” under the Land Code or was set up to circumvent the law. Two-track enforcement actions. Based on the committee’s findings, enforcement may consist of one or both of the following: Land disposal: If a juristic person is classified as a foreign national under the law, the provincial governor sets a deadline for the entity to dispose of the land under the Land Code. Criminal prosecution: If the entity was established specifically to hold land on behalf of a foreign national in circumvention

Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership

Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees. The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest. Scope and Key Provisions Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin. Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas: Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information. Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces. Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches. Personal Data Protection Penalties The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows: Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of