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

December 4, 2019

The Regulatory Regime Surrounding OTT Content and Operators

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The internet has provided exponential growth in platforms for the delivery of media content, but while regulations for traditional forms of media, such as film and television content, are well established, specific regulations and clear supervision for over-the-top (OTT) content still have yet to be established.  

This article discusses the authority of the Thai regulator to control content broadcast through different modes of delivery, such as film, television, and OTT content.

Film & Video Content   

Under the Film and Video Act B.E. 2551 (2008), a film or  video must be submitted to the Film and Video Censorship Committee for their review and approval before it is permitted to be displayed, rented, exchanged, or distributed in Thailand. Upon reviewing the film, the committee will classify the film or video into appropriate categories, and determine whether the content contains any ‘prohibited characteristics,’ such as content that:

  • Undermines public order or good morals;
  • Affects the security and dignity of Thailand;
  • Defiles religion;
  • Causes discord among groups of people in Thailand;
  • Impacts the monarchy; or
  • Is sexual in nature or shows sex organs.

If the committee determines that the film contains prohibited characteristics, it will order the applicant to censor or remove the relevant scenes or content. If the applicant refuses to edit the content accordingly, the film will be assigned to the “banned” category, and dissemination of the film will be prohibited in Thailand.

TV Content   

Content broadcast on television falls under the regulations of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). The Broadcasting and Television Businesses Act B.E. 2551 (2008) gives licensees of a television broadcasting business the duty to review the television programs and suspend broadcasts of any program that contains (1) anti-monarchy content; (2) content that may affect state security, public order, or good morals; or (3) content that portrays obscenities or that causes a serious deterioration in the minds of the people. If the licensee fails to suspend the broadcasting of television programs that contain this prohibited content, the NBTC has the authority to immediately suspend the broadcasts, and if such failure to act is due to the licensee’s negligence, the NBTC may order the licensee to carry out rectification work, or suspend or revoke their license.

OTT Content – Applicable Regulations?    

OTT content is any type of video, broadcast, or other media content independently delivered via internet technology without the control or involvement of any facility or network responsible for its delivery. The delivery method for OTT content is simply “over the top” through an open network. OTT content is inclusive of various types of media, such as movies, videos, and television programs. Examples of OTT service providers in Thailand are Facebook, YouTube, Line TV, AIS PLAY, TRUE ID, and Netflix.   

In Thailand, OTT content and OTT service providers are not regulated by any particular government organization or any specific laws or regulations. The NBTC launched an attempt in 2017 to regulate OTT content and related service operators, but this attempt was never fully realized. When the NBTC raised the issue again in early 2019, it was met with a widespread public backlash, and since that time, no further developments have emerged over this hot issue. Consequently, issues pertaining to regulatory powers over OTT content and OTT service providers have yet to be settled. However, as OTT content is primarily in the form of media content, OTT content is required to comply with the laws and regulations that are relevant to each type of content on a case-by-case basis. Laws that may be relevant to OTT content include the Copyright Act, the Personal Data Protection Act, and the Computer Crimes Act. 

Takedown Measures for OTT Content   

As there is no regulator or law that can be applied specifically to OTT content, a person who would like to force a takedown of OTT content from a platform would have to rely on the existing legal measures in other relevant laws. In other words, the targeted OTT content must be considered unlawful, and fall within the criteria of the applicable laws, to be legally removed or taken down from an OTT platform. Furthermore, the measures must be applicable and sufficiently practical in order to enforce the takedown action against the OTT service provider. Two such applicable laws—the Copyright Act and the Computer Crimes Act—are discussed below.

Copyright Act   

The majority of content broadcast through OTT platforms could variously be considered audiovisual work, musical work, cinematographic work, or broadcasting work according to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) and could thus be protected as copyrighted work under section 6 of the law. Considering the nature of OTT content, there are two primary ways to commit copyright infringement: (1) direct infringement by an OTT service provider; or (2) infringement by a user of an OTT platform through user-generated content (UGC). Examples of the latter are self-uploaded video or audio clips and live broadcasting on open OTT platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitch.

Direct infringement by an OTT service provider occurs when the OTT content is offered on the platform by the OTT service provider and directly infringes the copyright of another person. This is considered copyright infringement under sections 27–29 of the Copyright Act. Although section 32/3 of the law provides a channel for an immediate takedown, this section is not applicable to this type of infringement because the OTT service provider for this type of direct infringement is actually an infringer, and not an internet or storage service provider under this section. Therefore, the copyright owner would have to apply for a preliminary injunction through general court proceedings in the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) if it wishes to compel a takedown of the content.      

For infringements in UGC, the user who created the infringing content would be identified as a copyright infringer under sections 27–29 of the Copyright Act. However, the OTT service provider could still be liable for copyright infringement on its platform under section 31 of the Copyright Act. In order to be liable, the OTT service provider must (or should) have known that the OTT content infringed another party’s copyright, and despite such knowledge, continued to commit illegal acts such as communicating and distributing the infringing work to the public. The conditions relating to knowledge of the infringing works may be helpful in pressuring the OTT service provider to voluntarily take down the infringing UGC from its OTT platform, because if the OTT service provider “knows” about the infringing content and does not comply with the copyright’s owner removal request, the copyright owner would have strong grounds to bring legal action against the OTT service provider and directly request a preliminary injunction against them. 

In addition, a copyright owner may be able to apply for an order through the IP&IT Court to force an OTT service provider to take down the content, if the OTT service provider is an open platform that allows users to upload works onto the platform and stores the works under the users’ accounts. This is because the service provider would fit the “service provider” definition under section 32/3 paragraph 2(2), and so the channel for forcing takedown action under this section would be available.    

In practice, the IP&IT Court is reluctant to issue injunctive relief in respect to this section. Furthermore, even if the court grants the copyright owner an injunction order, the enforcement of the order is still problematic and often unenforceable in practice, as the order may not cover the removal of content stored on servers outside of Thailand. Therefore, there remains an inability to enforce an order against an unidentified infringer. A new draft copyright law, which has recently been released for public hearing, includes a revamp of the takedown measure under the current section 32/3. The current draft of the takedown measure would eliminate the complicated court procedures and rely on a notice and takedown system between private entities. Under this draft, a future amendment to the Copyright Act would open the door for effective injunctive relief against infringing OTT content. However, the practical usage of this measure must be closely observed, if and when the proposed amendment to the Copyright Act is enacted and officially enforced.

Computer Crimes Act

Section 20(3) of the 2017 amendment to the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550 (2007) (CCA) is related to takedown measures for OTT matters, offering injunctive relief against the dissemination of computer data deemed a criminal offense against intellectual property, either by stopping the dissemination or by deleting the computer data from the system. As OTT content is typically in the form of both computer data and copyrighted work, section 20(3) of the CCA can be applied to compel the takedown of infringing OTT content. In addition, unlike the takedown measure under the Copyright Act, an injunction under the CCA does not require the copyright owner to initiate legal action after the content has been taken down.

The injunctive procedure is initiated by the submission of a complaint to a police officer and an officer at the Center of Operational Policing for Thailand against Intellectual Property Violations and Crimes on Internet Suppression (COPTICS), which will process the matter and forward the findings to the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society for approval. Once the minister has approved the matter, a ministry officer will file a motion with the court to obtain the injunctive order.

As this measure needs to pass through many entities, it normally takes at least six months to obtain such an order. Since 2018, the government has attempted to expedite the injunction process by incorporating the NBTC into the process, whereby the police inquiry officer will directly inform the NBTC about the temporary blocking of selected URLs, which can then be blocked within three days. However, the NBTC is currently only able to block unsecured URLs, and it remains powerless to block any secured URLs (such as those using HTTPS) that are encrypted from abroad. As the majority of OTT service providers normally encrypt their URLs for OTT platforms, this special channel through the NBTC may therefore not be effective in taking down infringing OTT content. Therefore, a copyright owner aiming to compel takedown of infringing content using the CCA measure would have to rely on the normal channels.       

Going Forward

As the delivery of different types of media content is subject to different regulatory regimes, content creators should be aware of the corresponding regulations and the associated regulatory risks. While the current absence of specific regulations for OTT content may allow content creators to have a broader scope and enjoy greater flexibility in creating and broadcasting their content via the internet, content creators must be ever more cautious to ensure compliance with the existing laws relevant to each type of content on a case-by-case basis.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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,
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More