On December 17, 2025, Laos’ Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) issued a notice introducing a new digital system that allows e-commerce businesses to obtain required certificates and licenses through an online, application-based platform. Notice No. 3988, which will take effect on February 1, 2026, introduces the E-Trust platform, a downloadable application that allows e-commerce businesses to remotely obtain acknowledgement certificates and business operating licenses. New Digital Registration Options Under the previous framework established by the Decree on E-commerce (2021), businesses were required to complete registration exclusively through paper-based submissions. The new system now offers businesses two registration options: Traditional paper-based process at the Division of E-commerce Management within the MOIC; or Electronic registration and renewal through the E-Trust platform. This change is expected to streamline procedures, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance accessibility for businesses operating outside Vientiane. The E-Trust platform facilitates compliance for both individuals and legal entities required to submit applications and renewals for required certificates and licenses. The development is particularly beneficial for businesses located in remote provinces, as it eliminates the need for physical travel and significantly accelerates processing times. Compliance Requirements and Penalties Businesses must obtain or renew the required certificates and licenses to avoid sanctions under the Decision on Fines and Other Measures for Violation of the Decree and Regulations on E-commerce (No. 2828/MOIC, dated November 11, 2025). Penalties for noncompliance may include monetary fines and other enforcement measures.

Thailand has granted ride-sharing platforms additional time to comply with new regulatory requirements, extending the compliance deadline to March 31, 2026 (replacing the previous deadline of October 2, 2025). The postponement was made official on December 18, 2025, when Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published the second Notification Regarding Supervision of Ride-Hailing Platforms Classified as High-Impact Digital Platform Services under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Businesses. The notification provides additional time for ride-sharing platforms and drivers to transition to full regulatory compliance. The extension replaces the effective date provision of the earlier notification and applies specifically to ride-hailing activities. Background The postponement responds to feedback from operators and driver groups regarding challenges converting private vehicles into legally registered public vehicles, including complex registration procedures, high compliance costs, and operational delays. The Department of Land Transport (DLT) is concurrently reforming its vehicle registration and driver verification processes to streamline operations. Given these issues, the Electronic Transactions Committee has deferred enforcement to provide an adjustment period for operators and drivers to meet compliance requirements. Ongoing Obligations While the effective date has been deferred, the substantive obligations imposed on ride-sharing platforms remain fully intact. Operators must continue preparing to comply with the additional duties applicable to high-impact digital platform services, beyond the general requirements under the digital platform services framework. Operators are expected to use the extended transition period to finalize operational and compliance readiness ahead of enforcement on March 31, 2026. Key focus areas include: Integration with DLT vehicle-registration systems Deployment of robust driver and passenger identity verification mechanisms Updates to platform terms of service, driver-onboarding standards, and internal operational policies Preparation for ETDA reporting obligations and future audit and review processes Next Steps While the postponement replaces the previous effective date with the new March 31, 2026,

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released the Guidelines for Digital Fraud Management, which took effect on December 17, 2025, incorporating certain amendments to the draft guidelines issued in March 2025. These official guidelines aim for end-to-end digital fraud prevention, with a particular focus on mule accounts, to enhance trust and security in Thailand’s financial system. The guidelines apply to “financial service providers,” including: Financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act; and Operators of Inter-institutional Fund Transfer System e-money services and e-fund transfer services under the Payment Systems Act. Besides commercial banks and e-money operators that offer fund-transfer services, other providers may adopt requirements based on risk proportionality and baseline standards set out in the guidelines (for instance, an e-money operator that does not offer e-fund transfer services could consider implementing a fraud monitoring and detection system according to the risk level of its service). The guidelines establish the following key requirements: Policy and oversight. Directors and senior executives of financial service providers must adopt appropriate “end-to-end” fraud management policies and KPIs to manage digital fraud, covering prevention, monitoring, detection, management, resolution, and support for affected customers. The fraud management policy must be regularly reviewed, and whenever there is a situation or change that significantly affects the efficiency of the fraud management. Any significant update to the policy must first be approved by the board of the financial service provider. The BOT also encourages providers to collaborate in establishing industry standards aligned with applicable laws and regulations to ensure consistency and best practices across the sector. Fraud management processes. Financial service providers must establish a clear framework for managing digital fraud throughout the customer lifecycle—from customer onboarding to service termination—covering at least the following processes: Know your customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD):

One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations