You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 4, 2019

The Regulatory Regime Surrounding OTT Content and Operators

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The internet has provided exponential growth in platforms for the delivery of media content, but while regulations for traditional forms of media, such as film and television content, are well established, specific regulations and clear supervision for over-the-top (OTT) content still have yet to be established.  

This article discusses the authority of the Thai regulator to control content broadcast through different modes of delivery, such as film, television, and OTT content.

Film & Video Content   

Under the Film and Video Act B.E. 2551 (2008), a film or  video must be submitted to the Film and Video Censorship Committee for their review and approval before it is permitted to be displayed, rented, exchanged, or distributed in Thailand. Upon reviewing the film, the committee will classify the film or video into appropriate categories, and determine whether the content contains any ‘prohibited characteristics,’ such as content that:

  • Undermines public order or good morals;
  • Affects the security and dignity of Thailand;
  • Defiles religion;
  • Causes discord among groups of people in Thailand;
  • Impacts the monarchy; or
  • Is sexual in nature or shows sex organs.

If the committee determines that the film contains prohibited characteristics, it will order the applicant to censor or remove the relevant scenes or content. If the applicant refuses to edit the content accordingly, the film will be assigned to the “banned” category, and dissemination of the film will be prohibited in Thailand.

TV Content   

Content broadcast on television falls under the regulations of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). The Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act B.E. 2551 (2008) gives licensees of a television broadcasting business the duty to review the television programs and suspend broadcasts of any program that contains (1) anti-monarchy content; (2) content that may affect state security, public order, or good morals; or (3) content that portrays obscenities or that causes a serious deterioration in the minds of the people. If the licensee fails to suspend the broadcasting of television programs that contain this prohibited content, the NBTC has the authority to immediately suspend the broadcasts, and if such failure to act is due to the licensee’s negligence, the NBTC may order the licensee to carry out rectification work, or suspend or revoke their license.

OTT Content – Applicable Regulations?    

OTT content is any type of video, broadcast, or other media content independently delivered via internet technology without the control or involvement of any facility or network responsible for its delivery. The delivery method for OTT content is simply “over the top” through an open network. OTT content is inclusive of various types of media, such as movies, videos, and television programs. Examples of OTT service providers in Thailand are Facebook, YouTube, Line TV, AIS PLAY, TRUE ID, and Netflix.   

In Thailand, OTT content and OTT service providers are not regulated by any particular government organization or any specific laws or regulations. The NBTC launched an attempt in 2017 to regulate OTT content and related service operators, but this attempt was never fully realized. When the NBTC raised the issue again in early 2019, it was met with a widespread public backlash, and since that time, no further developments have emerged over this hot issue. Consequently, issues pertaining to regulatory powers over OTT content and OTT service providers have yet to be settled. However, as OTT content is primarily in the form of media content, OTT content is required to comply with the laws and regulations that are relevant to each type of content on a case-by-case basis. Laws that may be relevant to OTT content include the Copyright Act, the Personal Data Protection Act, and the Computer Crimes Act. 

Takedown Measures for OTT Content   

As there is no regulator or law that can be applied specifically to OTT content, a person who would like to force a takedown of OTT content from a platform would have to rely on the existing legal measures in other relevant laws. In other words, the targeted OTT content must be considered unlawful, and fall within the criteria of the applicable laws, to be legally removed or taken down from an OTT platform. Furthermore, the measures must be applicable and sufficiently practical in order to enforce the takedown action against the OTT service provider. Two such applicable laws—the Copyright Act and the Computer Crimes Act—are discussed below.

Copyright Act   

The majority of content broadcast through OTT platforms could variously be considered audiovisual work, musical work, cinematographic work, or broadcasting work according to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) and could thus be protected as copyrighted work under section 6 of the law. Considering the nature of OTT content, there are two primary ways to commit copyright infringement: (1) direct infringement by an OTT service provider; or (2) infringement by a user of an OTT platform through user-generated content (UGC). Examples of the latter are self-uploaded video or audio clips and live broadcasting on open OTT platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch.

Direct infringement by an OTT service provider occurs when the OTT content is offered on the platform by the OTT service provider and directly infringes the copyright of another person. This is considered copyright infringement under sections 27–29 of the Copyright Act. Although section 32/3 of the law provides a channel for an immediate takedown, this section is not applicable to this type of infringement because the OTT service provider for this type of direct infringement is actually an infringer, and not an internet or storage service provider under this section. Therefore, the copyright owner would have to apply for a preliminary injunction through general court proceedings in the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) if it wishes to compel a takedown of the content.      

For infringements in UGC, the user who created the infringing content would be identified as a copyright infringer under sections 27–29 of the Copyright Act. However, the OTT service provider could still be liable for copyright infringement on its platform under section 31 of the Copyright Act. In order to be liable, the OTT service provider must (or should) have known that the OTT content infringed another party’s copyright, and despite such knowledge, continued to commit illegal acts such as communicating and distributing the infringing work to the public. The conditions relating to knowledge of the infringing works may be helpful in pressuring the OTT service provider to voluntarily take down the infringing UGC from its OTT platform, because if the OTT service provider “knows” about the infringing content and does not comply with the copyright’s owner removal request, the copyright owner would have strong grounds to bring legal action against the OTT service provider and directly request a preliminary injunction against them. 

In addition, a copyright owner may be able to apply for an order through the IP&IT Court to force an OTT service provider to take down the content, if the OTT service provider is an open platform that allows users to upload works onto the platform and stores the works under the users’ accounts. This is because the service provider would fit the “service provider” definition under section 32/3 paragraph 2(2), and so the channel for forcing takedown action under this section would be available.    

In practice, the IP&IT Court is reluctant to issue injunctive relief in respect to this section. Furthermore, even if the court grants the copyright owner an injunction order, the enforcement of the order is still problematic and often unenforceable in practice, as the order may not cover the removal of content stored on servers outside of Thailand. Therefore, there remains an inability to enforce an order against an unidentified infringer. A new draft copyright law, which has recently been released for public hearing, includes a revamp of the takedown measure under the current section 32/3. The current draft of the takedown measure would eliminate the complicated court procedures and rely on a notice and takedown system between private entities. Under this draft, a future amendment to the Copyright Act would open the door for effective injunctive relief against infringing OTT content. However, the practical usage of this measure must be closely observed, if and when the proposed amendment to the Copyright Act is enacted and officially enforced.

Computer Crimes Act

Section 20(3) of the 2017 amendment to the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550 (2007) (CCA) is related to takedown measures for OTT matters, offering injunctive relief against the dissemination of computer data deemed a criminal offense against intellectual property, either by stopping the dissemination or by deleting the computer data from the system. As OTT content is typically in the form of both computer data and copyrighted work, section 20(3) of the CCA can be applied to compel the takedown of infringing OTT content. In addition, unlike the takedown measure under the Copyright Act, an injunction under the CCA does not require the copyright owner to initiate legal action after the content has been taken down.

The injunctive procedure is initiated by the submission of a complaint to a police officer and an officer at the Center of Operational Policing for Thailand against Intellectual Property Violations and Crimes on Internet Suppression (COPTICS), which will process the matter and forward the findings to the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society for approval. Once the minister has approved the matter, a ministry officer will file a motion with the court to obtain the injunctive order.

As this measure needs to pass through many entities, it normally takes at least six months to obtain such an order. Since 2018, the government has attempted to expedite the injunction process by incorporating the NBTC into the process, whereby the police inquiry officer will directly inform the NBTC about the temporary blocking of selected URLs, which can then be blocked within three days. However, the NBTC is currently only able to block unsecured URLs, and it remains powerless to block any secured URLs (such as those using HTTPS) that are encrypted from abroad. As the majority of OTT service providers normally encrypt their URLs for OTT platforms, this special channel through the NBTC may therefore not be effective in taking down infringing OTT content. Therefore, a copyright owner aiming to compel takedown of infringing content using the CCA measure would have to rely on the normal channels.       

Going Forward

As the delivery of different types of media content is subject to different regulatory regimes, content creators should be aware of the corresponding regulations and the associated regulatory risks. While the current absence of specific regulations for OTT content may allow content creators to have a broader scope and enjoy greater flexibility in creating and broadcasting their content via the internet, content creators must be ever more cautious to ensure compliance with the existing laws relevant to each type of content on a case-by-case basis.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
Read More
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More