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

January 8, 2018

Electronic Marketing Under Thailand’s New Computer Crime Act

CPO Magazine

Thailand’s amended Computer Crime Act, which took effect in May this year, has brought about much needed changes in the way businesses can conduct electronic marketing. Spammers will now face criminal charges and hefty penalties if found guilty.

The latest rules are in line with Thailand’s national efforts in digital transformation as part of the “Thailand 4.0” policy to develop the country into a value-based economy driven by technology and innovation. To further this goal, the Thai government is actively promoting digital platforms, research and development, and science and technology.

Earlier this year, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) also revealed that in 2016, Thai people will use the internet, on average, 45 hours per week or 6.4 hours per day.  Notably, 75.8 percent of that internet time will be spent on electronic messages.  This high usage volume has provided plenty of electronic marketing opportunities, which continues to be one of the most economical ways to conduct marketing in Thailand.

To facilitate this economic change, and to provide legal protection for online users, the government and the National Legislative Assembly have updated a number of key laws, including the Computer Crime Act. The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society is also developing subordinate regulations to support the Computer Crime Act. One noteworthy area of change has been to the legal restrictions on inappropriate electronic marketing, and particularly spam emails.

Electronic marketing offenses under Section 11 of the Computer Crime Act

Although Section 11 of the old Computer Crime Act prohibited sending emails or electronic data which had concealed or falsified origins that affected the normal operation of a recipient’s computer, it did not apply to electronic marketing spam – emails or electronic data that disturbed the recipients. To address this exclusion, section 11 of the new Computer Crime Act makes it an offense to send emails or electronic data that disturbs recipients, and which do not allow recipients to unsubscribe.

The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society also subsequently issued a Ministerial Notification for Characteristics and Methods of Sending Data Deemed Not to Cause a Disturbance to the Recipient, which defines the types of emails and data that are not considered to cause disturbances to recipients. The notification provides “safe harbor rules” for businesses to abide by in their electronic marketing campaigns, when emailing existing or prospective customers, business partners, or third parties.

Safe harbor rules under the Computer Crime Act

Under the “safe harbor rules”, a “sender” is defined as any person who intends to send company emails or data for commercial purposes, and any website, application or social media operator that advertises or supports the sending of such email or data. The rules do not apply to telecommunications business operators that act as intermediaries for transmitting such emails or data, in order to prevent undue criminal liability for these operators when third parties use their services and networks.

The following types of data are not considered to cause a disturbance to recipients:

  1. Data sent to another person as evidence of an agreed contractual transaction, or for compliance with the law, or for expressing a relationship or a legal relationship between each other;
  2. Data sent by government authorities that enforce the law, and for non-commercial purposes;
  3. Data sent by an educational institution, a charitable body, or other organizations, and for non-commercial purposes; and
  4. Data sent in a legal manner which does not violate any individual rights, and for non-commercial purposes.

Emails or data that are sent for commercial purposes, and do not fall under the scope of the above, are only permissible when the recipient’s consent has been obtained. The following conditions for opting out or unsubscribing must also be met:

  • The data must specify signs, details, and processes that will enable the recipient to opt out or unsubscribe from receiving such data, and must include technical measures that will enable the recipient to do so quickly.
  • A sender who receives a request to unsubscribe must cease sending data to the recipient immediately if possible, or, in certain circumstances, within seven days after receiving the request.
  • The process or request form for opting out or unsubscribing must not be conditional and must not divert the recipient to any additional commercial purposes (e.g. clicking on an opt-out link takes the user to other websites or sales distribution channels).
  • If the sender continues to send data to the recipient after a request has been made, the recipient may send a second written request by way of email, registered postal mail with a return address, or through other channels by which they can confirm receipt. If the sender continues to send data after receiving a request of this nature, they are deemed to be committing a spam offense.

Implications for electronic marketing

Under the new rules, an offense incurs a maximum fine of THB 200,000 levied against each single spam email. It is thus important for corporations that engage in online business activities to comply with the safe harbor rules and be cautious in their online communications to avoid potential exposure to this penalty.

As the new Computer Crime Act and subordinate regulations have only been in effect for a short period, it remains to be seen how requirements can be complied with in practice. There are a few interesting issues to consider, such as how a sender can obtain consent from a recipient, and whether implied consent is acceptable. It should also be noted that the safe harbor notification grants the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society the authority to interpret and consider any issues arising from actions under the notification, which leaves open the possibility of additional legislative changes in the near future.

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
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
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
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