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​ 

April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More