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

October 25, 2023

Thailand Issues New Regulation on Prepaid Telecom Service Fee Collection

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has released a notification adding new consumer protection provisions related to the collection of prepaid telecom service fees and combining several disparate regulations and resolutions. The Notification on the Criteria Relating to the Collection of Prepaid Telecommunications Service Fees was issued on September 4, 2023, and came into effect on September 21, 2023.

The notification will be enforced as a general regulation and guideline for all telecom services other than fixed broadband services, which already fall under a comparable regulation.  

Previously, Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) had issued several regulations to regulate the collection of prepaid telecom service fees. These include the NBTC Notification on Contract Standards, the NBTC Notification on the Maximum Service Fee Rate and Collection of Prepaid Telecommunications Service Fees, and the NBTC Notification on the Criteria Relating to the Collection of Prepaid Fixed High-Speed Broadband Service Fees. These are now subsumed by the new notification.

Key requirements of the new notification on prepaid telecom fee collection are described below.

Collection Approval Requirement

Before collecting prepaid telecom service fees, service providers (SPs) must apply to the NBTC for approval by submitting the required forms and supporting documents. Changes to the criteria and methods of prepaid telecom service fee collection must also be reapproved. This provision aims to protect against fraud and money-laundering transactions.

The NBTC will consider whether to approve an SP’s proposal for the maximum period to be covered by the prepaid service fees on a case-by-case basis.

After the collection criteria and methods are approved by the NBTC, SPs must inform their users individually. SPs must also report to the NBTC by the 15th of every month after receiving the NBTC’s approval to collect prepaid service fees.

Approvals of prepaid service fee collection granted by the NBTC prior to the new notification are still effective, but SPs must obtain new approval for any changes or differences from the previously approved collection criteria and methods.

Consumer Protection

The new notification also includes several provisions aimed at protecting users of prepaid telecom services:

  • SPs must not set a time limit before which users have to complete their use of a prepaid telecom service except when approved by the NBTC, which may set conditions relating to transfers of remaining value, refunds of excess service fees, minimum terms for using the service, or registration of users’ names and addresses.
  • SPs must allow users to choose between prepaid and postpaid telecom service fee collection via similar channels, and must allow them to change their choice. If the service conditions prevent the collection of service charges after service usage or the end of the billing cycle, or if it creates an undue burden on the users, SPs may ask the NBTC for its approval to offer only postpaid collection. To obtain NBTC approval, SPs must justify their request with supporting evidence.
  • Any rewards or discounts offered to users for choosing prepaid collection must be reasonable, fair, and in proportion to the period for collecting the prepaid fee. SPs must inform users of the exact value of the rewards or discounts before they enter into service contracts.
  • SPs must set the service charges for prepaid services before giving rewards or discounts in a manner that does not differ significantly from the service charges for postpaid services with similar quality, volume, and service standards offered or provided in the market.
  • When collecting any other charges as specified in the service contract for both prepaid or postpaid services, SPs must inform users of the objective of collecting the charges and specify each charge separately in the telecom service statement. For example, if an SP charges a telecom service user for telecom equipment installation, the statement from the SP must show the installation charge as a separate item from the telecom service.

Refunds and Returns

The new notification on prepaid telecom fee collection assigns obligations to both SPs and users in relation to termination of a telecom service contract or change or cancellation of a service package.

In such a case, SPs must refund the prepaid service fee and any remaining unused balance, including VAT, in proportion to the remaining unused service. The SP must notify the user when the refund is complete.

To receive a refund from an SP, users must return any reward or discount received from the SP in proportion to the service that has already been used. However, if the cause of termination, change, or cancellation is the SP’s fault, the user does not need to return the reward or discount.

SPs must obtain approval from the NBTC regarding the details of service fee refunds and reward and discount returns before proceeding with prepaid collection.

For more information on the NBTC notification, or on any aspect of telecom activities in Thailand, please contact Charuwan Charoonchitsathian at [email protected], Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected], or Nitcharat Siraprapasiri at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More