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​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must