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

February 26, 2013

Online Pharmacies in Thailand: Potential Risks

Informed Counsel

“Save 30% if you buy today!” This is just one of many familiar e-commerce advertisements that regularly bombard consumers online. By employing many of the same techniques that have proven to be successful in selling other goods, many online pharmacies advertise drugs in an aggressive fashion to increase their sales.

Of course, online pharmacies offer certain advantages. They help consumers find the specific drug products they need, and they often offer special discounts. Online pharmacies are also easy to access—a simple web search reveals a seemingly endless list of online pharmacies. Furthermore, if a customer feels embarrassed about purchasing certain types of products, such as erectile dysfunction medication, from an actual pharmacy, a virtual pharmacy can help prevent an uncomfortable experience.

But despite these conveniences, there are some important risks associated with online pharmacies and the products they sell. Large quantities of drugs can be dispensed, which may raise the possibility of drug abuse. A further important risk is posed by counterfeit medication; drug products purchased online may be counterfeit, illegal, or unapproved by Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Web Pharmacy Hosted in Thailand: Illegal Products and Consequences

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published a story about a 33-year-old Thai woman who was the head of a company running a website, www.eDrugnet.com, plus at least 30 other affiliated websites. These sites sold drugs without prescriptions, despite the fact that they were required. These e-pharmacy websites were hosted in Thailand and shipped drugs to the United States. The company received e-mails with drug orders from customers and would send drugs overseas in boxes labeled as samples and gifts via express mail.

After a lengthy investigation by the U.S. FDA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security, which involved meeting the woman in Bangkok and ultimately causing her to fly to the United States to meet undercover agents, the woman confessed to the scheme. She pleaded guilty in federal court to wire fraud, money laundering, and introducing misbranded drugs to the United States. The Thai businesswoman is suspected of having made over USD 2.1 million. Her website has been taken offline, and her income and the assets from the business could be seized following the court sentencing, which is set for February 22, 2013.

Legislation in Thailand Governing Online Pharmacies

There is no separate legislation governing the online sale of pharmaceutical products through web pharmacies hosted in Thailand. The Drug Act B.E. 2510 (1967), which is applicable to the physical sale of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, also regulates the online sale of such products.

According to Section 14 of the Drug Act, the licensing authority (the Thai FDA) will approve a “license to sell drugs” for business operators if they comply with certain requirements. One of the requirements is that the business operator, a resident in Thailand, has the premises to sell or store drugs, equipment for use in the sale or storage of drugs, and control over the maintenance of drug quality and quantity, as prescribed in the ministerial regulations. In addition, Section 21 of the Drug Act states that a business operator that has been permitted to sell modern drugs must have a pharmacist on duty during business hours. These two sections of the Drug Act restrict the distribution of drugs “virtually,” since both the requirements of appropriate premises and a pharmacist on duty are unmet.

Using the Internet and Social Media for Drug Advertising

Despite the fact that it is not legal under Thai law to market drug products online, more and more pharmacies are now turning to social media marketing as a promotional channel. Many pharmacies are creating fan pages via social media as part of a “direct-to-consumer advertising” strategy.

However, business operators need to understand that information distributed on the internet, intended for customers in Thailand, must meet the same requirements as other media distribution. While there are no specific rules on the use of the internet or social media for drug advertisements, the Thai FDA enforces and regulates the promotion of drugs via Sections 88 to 90 of the Drug Act. Under Section 88 bis, advertisements to sell drugs via radio, television, movies, or through printed matter must receive permission from the Thai FDA for the text, sound, or picture used in the advertisement.

Nevertheless, most advertisements (more than 85 percent) on the internet are being presented without permission, according to the Thai FDA. Currently, the FDA has made it a priority to deal with this problem. Thus, business operators must ensure that their social media marketing strategy meets FDA requirements, as well as the requirements of the Drug Act. Any violation of the Drug Act’s marketing provision is subject to a fine of up to THB 100,000 (USD 3,330).

Increasing Enforcement

Thailand’s current drug laws are more than forty years old, and therefore are not well suited to deal with e-commerce. Although it is not legally permissible to market drug products online in Thailand, the illegal online pharmacies that do still exist pose threats to consumers in regard to the method of distribution, which may increase the likelihood of drug abuse, and further run the risk of medication being counterfeit. Thai pharmaceutical businesses should assess whether their e-commerce and marketing activities violate drug laws, especially as national and international authorities are stepping up their efforts to prevent the further proliferation of illegal online pharmacies.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat. As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap. The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations. What Is Cultivated Meat? Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production. The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption. Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product. Thailand’s Safety
September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to