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​ 

March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or