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

November 29, 2017

Spam and the Computer Crimes Act 2017: What Do Businesses Need to Know?

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As the government seeks to elevate Thailand to the status of a high-income nation, the formation of a digital platform through the “Thailand 4.0” project is seen as an essential element of economic transformation, with the focus now fixed firmly on enhancing research and development, science and technology, and creative thinking and innovation.

To facilitate this economic change, the government and the National Legislative Assembly have made a number of changes to the law, including updates to the Computer Crimes Act (CCA) which were enacted earlier this year. The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society is responsible for issuing subordinate regulations under the CCA.

Spam e-Message Offense

Section 11 of the old CCA previously prohibited sending to another person any email or computer data that concealed or forged its source in a manner that disturbed the normal use of another’s computer system. However, it did not apply to disturbing or bothering the recipient themselves. The new version has been amended in direct response to developments in tech-related activities, and now makes it an offense to send an email, or computer data, in a manner that disturbs the recipient and that does not allow the recipient to opt out or unsubscribe.

In addition, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society has issued a notification under the new section 11 that sets out the characteristics and methods of sending emails and data, and characteristics of computer data or e-mails, which are not considered to cause a disturbance to the recipient. This notification acts as a set of “Safe Harbor Rules” for business operators when sending e-messages to their customers, prospective customers, or even to business partners or third parties.

The notification defines a “sender” as any person who intends to send company data or emails primarily for commercial purposes, and any website, application, and social media operators that advertise or support the sending of such data or emails. However, it does not include telecommunications business operators that act as intermediaries for transmitting such data or emails.

Safe Harbor Rules

The following types of e-messages are assumed not to cause a disturbance to the recipient.

  1. An e-message sent to another person as evidence of an agreed contractual transaction, or for compliance with law, or for expressing a relationship or a legal relationship between each other.
  2. An e-message sent by a government body that enforces the law, for the purpose of providing communications that are not for commercial purposes.
  3. An e-message sent by an educational institution, a charitable body, or other organizations, which is not for commercial purposes.
  4. An e-message sent in a legal manner which does not violate any individual rights and which is not for commercial purposes.

The notification states that e-messages for commercial purposes (and not within the scope of 1– 4 above) are only permissible when consent has been obtained from the recipient, and the following conditions are met:

  • E-messages must specify the signs, details, and processes that will enable the recipient to opt out of or unsubscribe from receiving such e-messages, including technical measures allowing the recipient to do so quickly.
  • After a request to unsubscribe has been made, the sender must suspend the sending of e-messages to the recipient immediately or, in certain circumstances, within seven days from the receipt of the request.
  • It is strictly prohibited for the process or request form for opting out/unsubscribing to be conditional or to divert for any additional commercial purposes (for example, if clicking the opt-out request routes the user to other websites or other sales distribution channels).
  • If the sender continues to send e-messages to the recipient after a request has been made, the recipient may send another request, in writing, by way of an email, registered mail with return receipt, or any other way by which they can confirm receipt. If the sender continues to send e-messages after receiving a request of this nature, the sender is deemed to be committing the spam offense under section 11 of the CCA.

Practical Issues

It remains to be seen how the requirements can be complied with in practice. For example, some businesses have asked how they should get consent from the recipient and whether implied consent could be acceptable.

Since this spam e-message offense could attract a maximum fine of THB 200,000 per spam communication, companies that engage in online business activities need to proceed with caution in their electronic marketing and adhere to the safe harbor rules in order to avoid exposure to potential regulatory penalties.

Though the notification provides further guidance and clarification on the spam e-message offense and what business operators should do to avoid committing it, there will still be a number of practical issues on compliance, going forward, that will require further interpretation. The notification grants the Permanent Secretary of the Minister of Digital Economy and Society the power to interpret and consider any issues resulting from any actions that arise from the notification, and companies would be well advised to be alert for any such interpretations in the near future.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
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