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

November 20, 2015

Cyber Security Preparedness: It’s a Dangerous World Out There

Informed Counsel

Virtually all of us are dependent on the use of the Internet and Internet-connected devices. People are plugged in, online, and in constant communication through wired and wireless telecommunication networks coupled to the Internet.

By virtue of this dependency, we entrust Internet-enabled applications, programs, and connected devices with our most private communications and personal and financial details. Yet we read, almost on a daily basis, of hacks and compromises on a gargantuan scale, of the very systems we entrust with our private business and personal data.

The disclosures of Edward Snowden and others have increased public awareness about the need to be mindful of cyber security and cyber threats in our IT-centric world of smartphones, Internet, and Cloud-based services.

Businesses are faced with many of the same cyber security risks as individuals, but businesses are made to bear greater legal and financial responsibility in the event of a compromise.

Today, cyber security, including data protection, is a board-level critical business risk area. A major compromise of a corporate IT system may raise significant business continuity and business reputation risks, in addition to possible lawsuits by customers and actions by the government/regulators, such as investigations, penalties, and fines. Companies now find their risk management committees devoting more and more time to cyber security issues.

The cyber risk landscape is highly dynamic, making ongoing proactive prevention necessary but difficult. Moreover, it is very difficult for a business to keep a breach of its IT system private, irrespective of legal obligations or attempts to control public disclosure that a system has been hacked.

Worse still, the detection of a compromise or hack often happens many months or even years after the initial compromise. Clearly, dealing with cyber risks requires diligent attention. But given the dynamic nature of cyber risks, what areas should a business focus on when establishing a program of cyber security preparedness?

Cyber security preparedness necessarily involves much more than board supervision and risk management committee oversight. It also requires a review of what cyber security processes, structures, and mitigation measures government regulators expect in each of the jurisdictions where a company does business and/or where the relevant data resides. Going beyond legal issues, the review must also take account of practicalities, including costs, perceived risk, and objective reasonableness.

One key component of such a review is an assessment of vendor risk management, which has become even more important given the broad adoption of Cloud services. The review should include consideration of vendor policies, procedures, and contracts to ensure the sufficiency of security obligations and legal remedies to protect the company against a compromise by, or through, any of its vendors.

Cyber security risk assessment has also become a core component of due diligence, particularly in mergers and acquisitions. In addition to considering whether there are any ongoing regulatory investigations or enforcement actions relating to breaches or other compromises, a due diligence review should address whether the target company has critical data assets (e.g., personally identifying information of customers and/or credit card data) and whether the target has experienced data breaches, and if so, provide an explanation of the damage and how it was mitigated. It should also take account of the risk of future breaches, and more generally, whether the target’s cyber security program is adequate using both industry benchmark standards as well as legal requirements.

For example, a cyber security program should include an incident response plan that is tested through tabletop exercises with senior management, technology representatives, and legal counsel, and it should be kept up to date, taking account of new threats that are identified. The incident response plan should be developed using multiple scenarios to realistically simulate potential incidents including Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) intrusions, data theft, insider attacks, and denial of service attacks. The plan must also take account of the type of business.  For example, retailers should consider point-of-sale attack scenarios.

While important, detection is merely the first step. Businesses should also have in place policies and procedures for a proper response, providing for appropriate escalation within the organization’s management structure, mitigation of risk, and preservation of forensic evidence once a compromise is discovered. It should also protect attorney-client privilege materials and the company’s legal rights, in case lawsuits or government or regulatory investigations subsequently arise.

In today’s world, companies need to take a proactive stance in dealing with cyber security.  Companies’ dependence on IT systems and Cloud-based services will only increase, and cyber security will continue to become ever more important. Companies must prepare for attacks from the inside as well as from outside third parties (including both criminally-motivated individuals as well as state-sponsored attacks).

Company executives, hand in hand with legal counsel and the technology team, must work together to continually evaluate a company’s preparedness and develop and implement defense and mitigation strategies to prevent and limit damage due to cyber attacks.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
April 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical