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

May 25, 2018

Advertisements for Medical Facilities Now Require Preapproval in Thailand

Informed Counsel

The Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (also known as the Sanatorium Act) was recently amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016) which introduced a number of changes to Thailand’s regulation of private medical facilities, e.g. private clinics and hospitals, including those performing plastic surgery. Some of the most notable changes lie in the amended Section 38, which concerns advertisements. Previously, an advertisement for a medical facility was regulated post-publication and did not require any prior approval. The new Section 38 provides that such advertisements must obtain approval before their publication.    

Section 38’s subsequent enabling legislation, entitled the Department of Health Service Support’s (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for and Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, has been effective since January 31, 2018, and provides details of the approval process and compliance requirements.   

Medical facility adverts published before the amendment enjoyed a 90-day transition period (which ended on April 30, 2018), during which advertisers had to apply to the DoHSS for approval. Any pre-amendment ads for which permission was sought during the transition period, but that have not yet been approved, can continue to be displayed until the DoHSS notifies otherwise.   

It is notable that the Notification defines adverts for medical facilities very broadly to include any publication made for a medical facility’s commercial purposes.

The New Advertising Requirements

The new Section 38, paragraph one, requires any advertisement concerning a medical facility to be preapproved by the DoHSS. A small exception to this rule applies when the ad contains only the registered name and address of the medical facility, in which case approval is not required.

The new Section 38, paragraph two, prohibits adverts for medical facilities that misrepresent or exaggerate the nature of a medical facility’s operation, or may materially mislead the public in relation to it. These prohibitions have been carried over from the previous Section 38, and strengthened with more severe penalties (see below). It goes without saying that an advert that falls afoul of this paragraph will not be approved by the DoHSS.

Classification of Advertisements

Adverts are classified into two categories, and we can infer from the criteria and process that Category 1 advertisements are those considered “standard” or “conventional” for a medical facility. Applications under each category are subject to their own timeframe and fees, which are both higher under Category 2.

Category 1. An advertisement in Category 1 only contains information from the following list:

  • Name and qualifications or expertise of the practicing medical professional
  • Medical, public health, or professional services provided by the medical facility
  • Pricing for medical and pharmaceutical products and other services
  • Discount program as approved or permitted, as the case may be, by the Ministry of Public Health, provided that the applicable services and duration are clearly stated and the latter is not longer than one year
  • Notifications about the medical facility’s activities, such as routine destruction of medical records, relocation, or an event held on an important day
  • Office hours, as approved

For a straightforward case, an application in this category will be decided within 10 working days from the submission of completed paperwork. For subject matter in the form of text or still images, the government fee is THB 500 per A4 page. For audio or motion picture footage, the fee is THB 50 per second of airtime.   

Category 2. An advertisement outside the scope of Category 1 is considered to belong to Category 2. The time frame for a straightforward case in this category is 30 working days from the submission of completed paperwork. The government fees are THB 1,000 per A4 page, or THB 100 per second of airtime, as the case may be.

Penalties

Criminal penalties for violating the new Section 38 are provided in the new Section 68. If a medical facility is advertised without approval from the DoHSS, the penalty is a fine not exceeding THB 20,000. If the offender fails to comply with a takedown order (a remedial measure available to the DoHSS under section 39), an additional fine not exceeding THB 10,000 per day applies until the violation ceases.

If a medical facility is advertised with a misrepresenting, exaggerating, or materially misleading message, the penalty is imprisonment for up to one year, or a fine not exceeding THB 20,000, or both. If the offender fails to comply with a DoHSS takedown order, an additional fine not exceeding THB 10,000 per day applies until the violation ceases.

Precaution for Medical Facilities

The wellbeing of citizens and their right to make an informed decision about medical services has always been a priority of the Thai government. In recent years there have been reports on questionable advertising practices conducted by private medical facilities—particularly those related to aesthetics, obesity, and alternative therapies. The new regulations are intended to tighten controls over such advertisements.

Some commentators have raised concerns, however, that heavy regulation could bring about regulatory overlaps, ambiguity, and overall inefficiency, as medical facility advertisements may contain subject matter already regulated by other laws and authorities. Trademarks, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices are but a few examples. It is unclear how the interrelationship between such regulations works. For example, if Medical Facility A wishes to advertise the use of Medical Device B as part of its medical services, then the number of approvals required is still unclear.

To ensure that the system is effective and well-balanced, it is important to establish a mutual understanding between regulatory authorities, medical professionals, and legal practitioners, and these issues will need to be clarified by all three in time.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of