Carbon markets have moved to the forefront of corporate and regulatory agendas as global attention to climate change and sustainability intensifies. Worldwide, many jurisdictions—including Thailand—are finding carbon markets to be promising tools in their efforts to combat climate-warming emissions and accelerate their net-zero pathways and sustainability commitments. According to the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization’s (TGO) 2025 Voluntary Carbon Market Survey, approximately 3.29 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂eq) were traded under Thailand’s domestic standard between 2020 and 2024 with a cumulative market value of approximately THB 314.5 million (approximately USD 9.43 million), and 524 projects had been registered under the Thailand Voluntary Emission Reduction Program (T-VER) framework. Carbon Credits in Thailand Thailand’s carbon credit regime is, at present, entirely voluntary. There is not yet any obligation for businesses to purchase or retire carbon credits, although this may change once the draft Climate Change Act is enacted. The draft Climate Change Act, which is currently undergoing legal review before submission to Parliament, is expected to introduce a mandatory emissions trading system (ETS), under which  legal entities in designated sectors will be allocated emissions allowances and will be required to surrender sufficient allowances to cover their verified emissions, with penalties for shortfalls. Rather than imposing a blanket obligation on all businesses to purchase or retire carbon credits, the draft act is expected to allow ETS-covered entities to use eligible carbon credits (for example, those certified under T-VER) to meet only a limited, capped portion of their compliance obligation, with the applicable cap and eligibility criteria to be set out in subordinate regulations and the relevant allocation plan. The principal domestic framework for carbon credits is the T-VER, administered by the TGO. While some project developers in Thailand also operate under international standards such as Verified Carbon Standard or the Gold

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

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Fintech 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into the legal and regulatory frameworks governing fintech businesses across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s rapidly evolving fintech landscape, examining both the regulatory environment and practical considerations for businesses operating in or entering the Vietnamese market. Topics covered include: Fintech landscape and initiatives: General innovation climate; government and regulatory support Financial regulation: Regulatory bodies; regulated activities; consumer lending; secondary market loan trading; collective investment schemes; alternative investment funds; peer-to-peer and marketplace lending; crowdfunding; invoice trading; payment services; open banking; robo-advice; insurance products; credit references Cross-border regulation: Passporting; requirement for a local presence Sales and marketing: Restrictions on the promotion and marketing of financial products and services Cryptoassets and tokens: Distributed ledger technology; cryptoassets; token issuance Artificial intelligence: Regulatory framework governing AI systems and AI-enabled financial services Change of control: Notification and consent requirements for regulated businesses Financial crime: Anti-bribery and anti-money laundering procedures; regulatory guidance Data protection and cybersecurity: Data protection obligations; cybersecurity requirements applicable to fintech businesses Outsourcing and cloud computing: Outsourcing of material functions; use of cloud computing in the financial services industry Intellectual property rights: IP protection for software; employee- and contractor-created IP; joint ownership; trade secrets; branding; remedies for infringement Competition: Competition law issues affecting fintech businesses Tax: Incentives for innovation and investment; developments affecting tax and compliance obligations Immigration: Immigration options for recruiting skilled foreign personnel; special measures available through Vietnam’s international financial centers The chapter also examines a number of significant recent developments shaping Vietnam’s fintech sector, including the introduction of the country’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets, the adoption of a dedicated law on artificial intelligence, implementation of the banking regulatory sandbox,

Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In