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

July 26, 2021

Laos Issues E-commerce Regulations

Though online purchases of goods and services have been booming in Laos, the country’s laws and regulations have not kept pace. Providers of legal advice on these activities have therefore had to interpret laws and regulations on traditional physical retail activities instead, and apply them to online activities. However, Laos is making strides toward providing clear legal guidance for e-commerce operations by issuing legal measures to facilitate the regulation of online business activities.

For instance, on June 4, 2021, the new Decree on E-commerce No. 296/GOV (dated April 12, 2021, and published in the Lao Official Gazette on May 20) came into effect to clarify the regulatory framework for e-commerce in the country and to set requirements for electronic purchase contracts.

The decree, which applies only to operators residing or registered in Laos, regulates individuals and legal entities involved in the following activities:

  • Selling goods and services via their own electronic platform (website, program, or other instruction set);
  • Providing electronic marketplace services; and
  • Selling goods and services via electronic marketplaces.

Seller Notification Requirement

Business operators looking to sell goods or services via an electronic platform, either on their own website or application or via an electronic marketplace, must notify the relevant department of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce of their activity. (Existing operators must notify the ministry within 90 days from the decree’s effective date.) Although the chief concern of the decree is to target those whose regular activity is to sell goods and services online, the decree does not address whether those selling occasionally through an electronic marketplace still need to notify the ministry.

Documents for the notification consist primarily of the application form provided by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the enterprise registration certificate (i.e., proof of having registered a legal entity in Laos) or a simple ID card for individuals, a copy of the business operating license (for activities that require approval from a line ministry), and a copy of a contract with a payment service provider for payment via an electronic platform. Upon receipt of the necessary documentation, the ministry’s relevant departments or agencies will certify the notification within three working days. This certificate is valid for two years, and must be renewed thirty days before its expiry.

Electronic Marketplace Registration

Electronic marketplaces must be operated via an incorporated legal entity, which means an Enterprise Registration Certificate is a necessary prerequisite to operating an electronic marketplace in Laos. As for technical requirements, electronic marketplaces must obtain a Ministry of Technology and Communications certificate confirming their “technical conformity.” (The process and requirements for obtaining this certificate may be the subject of guidance that is yet to be issued.)

Similar to the grace period for the notification requirement mentioned above, existing electronic marketplace operators have 90 days (from June 4, 2021) to request authorization from the ministry. Upon receipt of the necessary documentation, the ministry’s relevant departments will consider and provide its authorization within five working days. This authorization is valid for three years, and must be renewed thirty days before its expiry.

Foreign Restrictions

Foreign shareholders cannot hold more than 90 percent of the shares of the legal entity operating an electronic marketplace, and the registered capital must be at least LAK 10 billion (approx. USD 1.05 million).

It is important to note that this decree does not replace existing laws and regulations that address certain types of goods or services sold, for which licensing, notification, minimum investment, and other requirements may apply. For instance, foreign participation in the provision of retail and wholesale services in Laos is limited under the Decision on Retail and Wholesale Business. Under this decision, a foreign shareholder who holds up to 50% of the shares in a retail or wholesale business must invest at least LAK 4 billion (approx. USD 423,350). Between LAK 10 billion (approx. USD 1.05 million) and less than LAK 20 billion (approx. USD 2.1 million) a foreign shareholder may hold 70% of the legal entity, while a foreign shareholder must invest at least LAK 20 billion to hold 100% of the shares of the marketplace’s legal entity conducting retail and wholesale services. Similar restrictions are likely to apply for online retail and wholesale businesses.

Transparency

The decree requires business operators of electronic platforms to disclose information on their platforms and activities, as well as on the goods and services sold. Accordingly, information on the business operator, such as its name, address, contact details, and Enterprise Registration Certificate or the relevant operating license, must be displayed on the electronic platform.

Descriptions of goods or services should note the product specifications (size, color, aspect, and so on) following the product labels as applicable, and product-related information such as origins, prices, return and warranty policies, related fees (e.g., shipment and payment methods), and terms and conditions. In addition, information on customers’ “satisfaction and opinion” concerning the goods and services must be displayed on the corresponding electronic platform. The decree also emphasizes that information on the goods or services offered must be realistic and portray products’ actual characteristics.

Product Liability

The decree also addresses liability for the goods and services sold, deeming electronic selling platforms and sellers on electronic marketplaces legally responsible for the goods and services they sell online.

The decree does not assign similar legal responsibility to entities operating electronic marketplaces on which the goods or services are sold. However, electronic marketplace operators are prohibited from authorizing or ignoring the sale of prohibited goods or services on their electronic marketplaces. Accordingly, they  must take a proactive role in the inspection of goods and services sold.

E-commerce Contracts

According to the decree, which endeavors to cover e-commerce contracts specifically (as opposed to electronic contracts more generally), there are two types of e-commerce contracts.

First, e-commerce contracts made via an “online ordering function” are defined as agreements between seller and client for the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, made by electronic means via the online ordering function of an electronic platform created by the “owner of the electronic platform.” Essentially, this means e-commerce contracts that cover transactions made on electronic platforms (other than electronic marketplaces), and assumes that they use electronic means of payment.

The second type of e-commerce contract is one made “via social media,” which is a term in the decree that the regulator interprets as also covering electronic marketplace contracts for the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services.

The decree stipulates that the offering of either type of e-commerce contract is governed primarily by the rules provided in the electronic platform’s terms and conditions. Upon acceptance of the offer by the seller, the e-contract will be deemed formed. The offer will be nullified if the seller does not respond within 12 hours (unlike the 15 days for a traditional contract in writing), unless otherwise stipulated in the terms and conditions of the electronic platform. The client may also cancel its offer before receiving a response from the seller.

Both types of e-commerce contracts must remain accessible to clients after the transaction, (e.g. through archives and purchase histories).

For e-commerce contracts made via the online ordering function of an electronic platform (not on an electronic marketplace), the electronic platform must have a system that allows clients to review, add, amend, confirm, or cancel an offer before formally submitting it by means of the online ordering function. In case of cancellation by the client, electronic platforms must provide clients with evidence that the notification to cancel the contract was sent.

Conclusion

E-commerce activities in Laos have typically had to rely on extensive interpretation of laws that were not made to address e-commerce. The new e-commerce decree discussed in this article is an example of how the government is working to update the regulatory framework to sustain promising high-tech sectors such as e-commerce, fintech, and others. As Laos remains a relatively untapped market in these areas, the Decree on E-commerce eases both local and international investors’ concerns about launching operations by clarifying some key issues. The decree does not address sanctions for noncompliance, and questions remain regarding some of the mandatory requirements (such as the “technical requirements”) to register an electronic marketplace. Therefore, in its current state full implementation of the decree may require subsequent guidance from the authorities.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
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