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 27, 2026

Comprehensive Policy: Thailand’s AI Governance Framework

Subscribe to Updates
Asia Business Law Journal

In response to the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and evolving global digital trends, Thailand has undertaken significant efforts to establish a comprehensive national policy framework aimed at fostering an AI ecosystem.

This framework seeks to promote the responsible development and deployment of AI technology to enhance Thailand’s economic competitiveness and improve quality of life, with targeted implementation by 2027.

In furtherance of this national AI policy, regulatory authorities have initiated efforts to develop and refine the applicable legal framework, including the drafting of Thailand’s first unified AI legislation.

Pending the composing and enactment of such comprehensive legislation, sector-specific regulators have proactively issued guidelines applicable to regulated entities within their respective jurisdictions, including financial institutions, banks, insurance companies, securities and derivatives business operators, and digital asset service providers.

Concurrently, cross-sectoral regulatory bodies, notably the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) and the National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA), have promulgated guidelines applicable to all business operators within their regulatory purview.

While unified AI legislation has not been enacted, the design, development and use of AI in Thailand in various industries is still subject to existing sector-specific legislation.

National AI policy

The Thai cabinet approved the Thailand National AI Strategy and Action Plan (2022-2027) in July 2022, aiming to establish an AI development and application ecosystem by 2027.

The strategy is built around five pillars:

  1. Preparing social, ethical, legal and regulatory readiness for AI;
  2. Developing national infrastructure;
  3. Increasing human capability and AI education;
  4. Driving AI technology and innovation; and
  5. Promoting AI adoption in public and private sectors.

The above-mentioned national AI committee, under the National Digital Economy and Society Committee (NDESC), was established in August 2022, chaired by the prime minister.

Comprehensive legislation

Following the national AI strategy, the government has been developing comprehensive AI legislation to govern and promote AI adoption in Thailand. The first set of draft legislation consists of two laws.

First, the draft Royal Decree on Business Operations that Use Artificial Intelligence Systems, issued by the Office of the National Digital Economy and Society Commission (ONDE) under the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), adopts a risk-based approach modelled on the EU AI Act.

Second, the draft Act on the Promotion and Support of AI Innovations, issued by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), focuses on building the AI ecosystem through provisions on sandboxes, data sharing, standards and risk assessment. Both drafts were issued for public hearing in 2022-2023.

The ETDA acknowledged that earlier drafts modelled on the EU’s framework needed updating to reflect Thailand’s evolving legal and technological landscape. In June 2025, the MDES, through the ETDA, introduced the (Draft) Principles of the Law on Artificial Intelligence for public hearing.

The draft AI principles are organised around five key areas:

  1. Risk-based requirements. Rather than specifying prohibited or high-risk AI categories in primary legislation, the framework delegates that authority to a central enforcement agency and sectoral regulators, which are considered best positioned to assess risks in their respective domains. Providers of high-risk AI would be required to implement risk management systems aligned with international standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 42001:2023), appoint local representatives in Thailand if they are offshore providers and report serious incidents. Deployers of high-risk AI must, among other things, ensure human oversight, maintain operational logs, ensure input data quality and notify individuals whose rights may be affected.
  2. Innovation support. The principles propose exceptions for text and data mining of online data and regulatory sandboxes for AI testing in controlled conditions. Sandbox participants acting in good faith would benefit from a safe harbour against penalties, though civil liability for damages would still apply.
  3. General principles. The framework affirms that AI-generated actions must be attributable to a human, prohibits denial of legal effect to AI-assisted contracts or administrative decisions, and establishes protections against unforeseeable AI errors. Individuals may have the right to be notified when AI is used, explaining AI-driven decisions, and to contest those decisions, although these rights may be limited to high-risk AI contexts.
  4. Regulators. No new regulatory body is proposed. Instead, the existing AI Governance Centre under the ETDA would oversee implementation including research, guidance, sandbox support and international co-operation.
  5. Legal enforcement. The enforcement agency and sectoral regulators would be empowered to issue administrative orders to cease prohibited or non-compliant AI services. Enforcement mechanisms include ordering digital platforms to remove or block services, seize products containing prohibited AI, and co-ordinate with MDES to direct internet service providers to block access within Thailand.

The draft AI principles, once revised after the hearing, will be transformed into a draft AI Act for further public hearing before proceeding through the legal enactment process.

Existing applicable laws

Without effective AI legislation, existing laws apply to AI adoption throughout the AI lifecycle – from design and testing to deployment and monitoring.

Key examples include:

  1. Liability. Under the Civil and Commercial Code, general wrongful act principles may impose civil liability for AI-caused damages.
  2. Data governance. Collection, use, disclosure and overseas transfer of personal data in AI systems are subject to the Personal Data Protection Act. Collection of computer data, including web scraping, could violate the Computer Related Crime Act (CCA). For critical information infrastructure organisations, the Cybersecurity Act is applied to ensure national cybersecurity measures are implemented.
  3. Content regulation and transparency. The CCA, Consumer Protection Act, Criminal Code and Child Protection Act restrict harmful, false, defamatory or obscene AI-generated content. The DPS Decree requires certain platforms to disclose algorithmic ranking and decision-making parameters.

In addition to the above-mentioned examples, laws such as the Copyright Act, Trademark Act, Gender Equality Act, Persons with Disabilities Empowerment Act, and Trade Competition Act, as well as the Thai Constitution, may be applicable, depending on the issue in question.

Sector-specific frameworks

While AI legislation has not been enacted, several regulators have proactively issued guidelines for their regulated businesses. Although certain guidelines carry no legal binding effect, regulatory bodies expect compliance to foster adherence with existing regulations.

Key sector-specific AI guidelines are:

  1. Banking and financial services. The Bank of Thailand issued Guiding Principles for Artificial Intelligence Risk Management in September 2025, applicable to financial institutions and payment service providers, covering AI lifecycle management, risk assessment, data governance, cybersecurity, transparency and human oversight.
  2. Capital markets. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand issued a governance framework for AI and machine learning applicable to securities, derivatives and digital asset operators. It establishes four core principles – fairness, legal and ethical compliance, accountability, and transparency – with guidance on risk management, documentation and lifecycle monitoring.
  3. Insurance. The Office of Insurance Commission issued AI governance guidelines for insurance companies in 2025, addressing risk management, security, transparency, fairness and consumer protection in AI applications, particularly in high-risk processes such as underwriting and claims management.
  4. Data protection. In February 2026, the Personal Data Protection Committee released draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in AI Development and Use. The guidelines address stakeholder roles, require data processing agreements to include model training prohibitions, mandate data protection impact assessments for high-risk AI, and establish security measures throughout the AI lifecycle.
  5. Cybersecurity. The National Cyber Security Agency released AI security guidelines in September 2025, providing recommendations on protecting AI systems from cyber threats aligned with ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI risk management framework.

Conclusion and outlook

Thailand has taken significant steps towards establishing a comprehensive AI governance framework, though it has not yet enacted AI-specific legislation. The draft AI principles, once finalised and enacted, will provide the foundational regulatory structure.

Meanwhile, sector-specific regulators have moved proactively to issue guidelines covering financial services, capital markets, insurance, data protection and cybersecurity.

Organisations deploying AI in Thailand should closely monitor legislative developments and assess compliance with existing legislation, aligning governance, risk management and transparency practices with existing guidelines to ensure readiness for the anticipated regulatory framework.

 

This article was originally published by Asian Business Law Journal.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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