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​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
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