Following Thailand’s recent expansion of the “major shareholder” definition for securities and digital asset businesses, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a public hearing on April 7, 2026, on expanding the major shareholder definition further to cover funding sources behind share acquisitions in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The public hearing will remain open for 15 days from the launch date, after which the proposed expansion is expected to take effect promptly so that operators can comply with both the earlier and additional requirements within the 180-day transitional period under the earlier regulations. Funding Sources Captured Under Control-Based Test Under the draft rules, persons who fund direct or indirect major shareholders’ acquisition of shares in a licensed operator would be deemed “controlling persons” and subject to SEC approval as major shareholders. This extends beyond traditional lenders to include guarantors, counterparties to derivatives or structured products, and any arrangement that results in a person being, directly or indirectly, a source of funding to a major shareholder. The SEC proposes to exempt three categories of funding arrangements from approval: Loans from Thai licensed financial institutions or BCBS (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision)-jurisdiction foreign banks; Margin loans for securities trading under Thai securities law; and Repurchase agreements under Thai securities law. Exemptions for Funding Sources of Government-Linked Entities The consultation proposes to stop look-through beyond the level of certain government-linked shareholders, including, without limitation, ministries, departments, bureaus, public organizations, independent agencies, and certain state enterprises. The SEC reasons that these entities’ mandates, duties, and funding sources are already subject to government oversight and audit, presenting minimal ownership-structure risk. Practical Implications Licensed securities and digital asset business operators should begin mapping their funding chains under the expanded definition in preparation for filing approval applications for any newly captured funding providers within the 180-day window established by the notification of the Ministry

Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should avoid multilayered or stacked fee formulas that may

As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that the public consultation process provides

As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder feedback are being consolidated to prepare

Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has published two parallel sets of draft regulatory amendments for public hearing—one governing non-life insurance and the other governing life insurance. The proposed amendments would significantly revise the rules for issuing, offering, and selling insurance policies, as well as the conduct of agents, brokers, and banks. Stakeholders may submit comments until April 25, 2026. The key proposed changes are summarized below. Electronic Policy Delivery by Default Under both draft amendments, electronic delivery would become the default method for delivering insurance policies. A printed copy would be required only if the policyholder expressly opts out, and any such printed copy would be treated as a substitute for the electronic original. For life insurance, this requirement would also extend to coverage summaries and to exclusion documents. The OIC would also retain authority to approve alternative delivery methods for specific types of policies. Misuse of Licenses Both amendments would introduce an explicit prohibition against sales representatives using another person’s name or license, or allowing another person to use their name or license, in connection with the offering of insurance or in sales documentation and policies. Premium Collection Reforms Both amendments would introduce the premium collection reforms outlined below. Premium receipt accounts Insurers must ensure that sales representatives inform customers of the available payment channels, which are limited to channels that remit premiums into the insurer’s account. If a customer pays an insurance premium to an insurer’s employee, an insurance broker, or any other person, and the company acknowledges the payment by issuing an insurance policy or other documentary evidence of insurance coverage, the insurer would be deemed to have received the insurance premium. Written premium collection and refund guidelines Insurers would be required to prepare written internal guidelines covering premium collection and refund policies, risk management associated with premiums, premium receipt channels, and customer notification methods. Check

In March 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated two significant investigations under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 that directly affect Thailand. The first investigation examines overproduction in manufacturing sectors caused by government support or policies that distort normal market conditions across 16 economies, including Thailand. The second investigation, launched the following day, targets 60 economies, also including Thailand, for alleged failures to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Taken together, these investigations represent a significant escalation in US trade enforcement and create substantial risk for Thai exporters, manufacturers, and businesses with supply chain connections to the United States. The investigations are moving on an accelerated timeline, with the USTR indicating that potential trade measures, including tariffs, could be imposed as early as July 2026. This article provides an overview of the investigations, highlights their specific implications for Thailand, and outlines practical considerations for affected businesses. Section 301 as a Trade Enforcement Tool Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the USTR authority to investigate foreign acts, policies, or practices that are considered unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict US commerce. If the USTR concludes that such practices exist, the statute allows a wide range of remedial measures, including the imposition of tariffs, nontariff trade restrictions, and negotiated agreements with foreign governments. Unlike other trade authorities, Section 301 does not set limits on the level of tariffs or the duration of measures, giving the USTR considerable flexibility to address perceived trade imbalances or unfair practices. Historically, Section 301 investigations take up to a year to complete. In this instance, however, the USTR has indicated that the investigations will proceed on a much faster timetable, with an unofficial target of concluding by July 2026. The compressed schedule increases the

Real estate law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins provided the chapter on Vietnam for Practical Law’s Commercial Real Estate Global Guide 2026, a comparative jurisdictional guide in Q&A format giving a high-level overview of real estate investment structures, restrictions on foreign ownership, and other important issues of real estate law. The main topics include the following: Real estate investment Title to real estate Sale of real estate Real estate tax Real estate finance Real estate leases Planning and development controls To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical to those of protected inventions. In addition to direct infringement, the draft decree also