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

March 6, 2019

The Compliance Framework for Online Content in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

With the growing power and influence wielded by online content, concerns have been raised in Thailand (as in many other countries) that online channels, which facilitate free and easy exchange of information across a variety of forums, could be used to conduct illegal activities that will incite discontent and conflict within the country. This is especially true of information exchanged and shared through social media and Over-the-Top (OTT) services.    

In a bid to exercise a degree of control over online content, a number of laws and regulations have been prescribed focusing specifically on types of information that should be restricted, or prohibited, from being disseminated online. The following is an overview of Thai laws and regulations relating to online content.

Computer Crimes Act    

The Computer Crimes Act (CCA) is used by the government as a tool to control, restrict, and prohibit the dissemination of specific information by computer. The CCA also authorizes authorities to monitor internet traffic and suppress content that falls within the scope of the following criteria:

  • Distorted, false, or partially false content which is likely to cause damage to the general public with malicious intent.
  • False content which is likely to cause damage to national security, public safety, national economic stability, or infrastructure for the public benefit, or cause panic to the general public.
  • Content that constitutes a criminal offense relating to national security or terrorism, the royal family, or relationships with foreign nations, as prescribed under the Penal Code.
  • Content that constitutes a criminal offense under the laws relating to intellectual property.
  • Content which, by itself, is contrary to Thai public order or good morals.
  • Obscene or pornographic content.
  • Computer data or emails which could be regarded as a disturbance to the recipients, wherein there is no option for them to easily opt out or unsubscribe.

The provisions of the CCA also provide enforcement measures aimed at tackling intellectual infringement through online platforms. These measures provide the possibility of imposing a permanent injunction, which allows for the suspension or blocking of websites that contain content, or disseminate any data, that is deemed to infringe intellectual property. The provisions also allow for the removal of such data from computer systems. 

Child Protection Act     .

The Child Protection Act prohibits the dissemination of any information relating to a child with the intention of causing damage to the mind, reputation, prestige, or any other interests of that child, or which seeks benefit for oneself or others in an unlawful manner.

Copyright Act   

With millions of people spending an increasing proportion of their time online in order to enjoy online content and services, several types of infringing digital content (e.g., movies, songs, or games) can easily be illegally disseminated and consumed through online platforms, increasing the risk of copyright infringements. Notably, an amendment to the Copyright Act that came into force in 2015 provides alternative relief for copyright infringement in the form of a preliminary injunction, allowing the injured parties to have infringing content removed from the internet.

NCPO Orders   

In addition to these attempts to curb widespread distribution of unregulated online content, Thailand’s interim government, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), has attempted to exert additional controls over digital rights by imposing extensive prohibitions on the dissemination and broadcasting of information via various forms of media.   

These NCPO orders empower authorities to prohibit the dissemination and broadcasting of any information that falls within the confines of the following criteria:

  • False content that could cause defamation or have a negative impact on the royal family.
  • News or information that could be harmful to national security.
  • Criticism of the NCPO’s operation which is provided in bad faith, or any false information that could impair the NCPO’s credibility.
  • Voices, photos, and videos relating to the confidential operation of government agencies.
  • Information which could cause controversy or polarization within the country.
  • Information that invites people, or leads to the assembly of people, in order to oppose NPCO officials, or people associated with the NCPO.
  • A threat to commit an act of violence against other people, or which causes panic or fear among the general public.

On top of these extensive restrictions, the NCPO orders also further prohibit individuals and media from inviting academics, or former civil servants, for interviews or to express opinions that are deemed to be in a manner that could exacerbate conflicts, or which distort information and cause confusion amongst the public.

Moving Forward   

The extensive restrictions and prohibitions cited above have not been initiated without concerns being raised in some quarters, and there is consternation that the drive to enforce the law could also result in a reduction in individual rights to freedom of expression.    

Therefore, finding a balance and suitable resolutions for these issues appears to be a crucial challenge for Thailand’s regulatory authorities, and ultimately, the country’s next government, which will come to power after the widely anticipated elections are held in March 2019. In the meantime, and whatever the outcome, it is imperative that both individuals and corporations understand the laws relating to online content, and exercise caution when engaging in any online transactions or businesses, in order to mitigate their exposure to potential penalties that may be imposed for transgressions.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
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
Read More