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​ 

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
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More