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​ 

February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
February 10, 2026
Data center and cloud investments are forming a major focus of private-sector investment in Thailand, with tech giants like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as numerous telecom and data center companies, committing significant outlays to data center and cloud development. The country’s Board of Investment (BOI) approved projects worth THB 1.87 trillion in 2025, and THB 746 billion of this was from planned data center investments—by far the largest amount from any single industry. Thailand’s swift rise as a regional data center hub is fueled by surging demand for cloud, AI, and digital services, as well as large-scale investments from global tech firms. The country’s strategic location, competitive power costs, robust fiber infrastructure, expanding IT talent, and supportive government policies—including BOI incentives and streamlined approvals—have made it an attractive destination for scalable and sustainable digital infrastructure investments. The BOI’s proactive approach in updating promoted categories and providing both tax and non-tax incentives further ensures Thailand’s continued growth in this sector. 2025 BOI Changes for Data Centers In the middle of 2025, the BOI responded to the remarkable trend by updating investment‑promotion categories across various sectors (e.g., machinery and electrical equipment, public utilities, digital and innovative industries) to accommodate growing investment in data‑center projects. Before the change, which was detailed in a notification that has applied to investment promotion applications submitted from July 1, 2025, onward, data‑center projects under BOI promotion were granted a single A1 incentive (an eight‑year corporate income‑tax exemption) and subject to one uniform set of conditions. The July 2025 notification restructured promotion for data centers into two categories based on power‑usage efficiency: high‑efficiency data centers and other data centers. Under these rules, qualified high‑efficiency data centers are eligible for an eight‑year corporate income tax (CIT) exemption, while for other data centers this exemption is
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)