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

January 30, 2024

Thailand Issues Draft Platform Economy Act

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has made its draft Platform Economy Act (the “Draft PEA”) available to relevant entities in certain industries. The Draft PEA aims to regulate and standardize digital platform service business operations and protect consumers and other stakeholders.

Once the Draft PEA becomes law, the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses that are subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022) and the relevant provisions under the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, will cease to have effect.

The key provisions of the Draft PEA are summarized below.

Definitions

The definitions of the key terms under the Draft PEA are substantially similar to the definitions of the key terms under the royal decree mentioned above. According to the Draft PEA, “digital platform services” refers to the provision of electronic intermediary services that manage data to facilitate connection, through computer networks, between business users, consumers, or users, regardless of whether remuneration is charged.

Exemption

The Draft PEA does not apply to digital platform services (DPSs) that are regulated by specific laws and have rules guaranteeing transparency and fairness, or that follow operational standards no less stringent than those required in the Draft PEA. Nonetheless, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) can request or link data relating to exempted DPSs from the relevant supervisory authorities.

Extraterritorial Effect

Offshore DPSs with certain characteristics are also subject to the obligations under the Draft PEA and will have to appoint a coordinating person in Thailand. However, offshore DPSs will not have to establish a business in Thailand.

General Responsibilities and Obligations

The Draft PEA sets out the following requirements:

  • DPSs with (1) at least THB 100 million (approx. USD 2.8 million) in annual revenue from providing the DPSs in Thailand before deducting expenses, or (2) more than 10,000 monthly users in Thailand (calculated from the average monthly usage pursuant to the rules of the ETDA) must report their operations to the ETDA within 30 days of becoming aware that they fall within either of the criteria.
  • Upon any changes in the name, type, channel, or other details of a DPS provider or the DPSs, or in the details of the local coordinator, the ETDA must be notified of the relevant information within 30 days from the date of the change. Any changes must also be included in an annual report due 60 days from the end of each calendar year for individuals or from the end of each fiscal year for legal entities.
  • DPS providers are responsible for the lawfulness of their users’ data and any other data transmitted through the DPS, unless it can be proved or evidence can be shown in court that the DPS acts only as an intermediary for the transmission of the data and does not store it, or that the DPS does not have access to the data.
  • DPSs that do not only act as intermediaries for the transmission of data, or for which the provider can access users’ data or other transmitted data, must implement a system, mechanism, or procedure enabling other persons to report illegal acts or noncompliance. Upon receiving such a report, the DPS must delete or block the illegal data. If the DPS determines that there is no illegal data or noncompliance, the finding must be promptly reported to the ETDA.
  • Measures for the alleviation of injuries, compensation, and remediation must be in place.

Additional Obligations for Certain DPSs

Additional obligations are imposed on two categories of DPSs that have specific characteristics.

A “specific type of DPS” is one that provides all of the following services:

  • Sending and receiving data of users and other persons;
  • Storing data of users and other persons; and
  • Matching different categories of users to facilitate electronic transactions or for the benefit of selling and purchasing goods or services through the DPS.

These specific types of DPSs are obligated to notify users of the laws relating to the purchasing of goods or services and the associated risks; implement a notification system for products that are required by law to have an expiry date; monitor and ensure that the DPS will not be used for illegal activities and immediately report any suspicious activities to the ETDA; implement an identity verification system; and submit an annual report to the ETDA on the DPSs’ transparency, among other obligations.

A “large DPS” is one that:

  • Has over THB 1 billion in annual revenue, before deducting expenses, from the provision of a DPS in Thailand;
  • Has over 100,000 monthly users in Thailand; or
  • Poses a high risk to Thailand’s economy and social stability, or a high risk of potential damage to the public.

Large DPSs are obligated to engage external experts to assess risks at least once a year; arrange for IT audits; appoint a chief compliance officer to liaise with the ETDA and other competent authorities; disclose factors and methods used for processing data to offer goods or services as well as the ranking of those goods or services; and implement channels to enable users to exercise the right not to receive advertisements, among other obligations.

DPS Cessation

In cases of DPS cessation, notification of the cessation must be made to the ETDA at least 60 days prior to the date of cessation. For large DPSs, the cessation notification must be submitted at least 120 days in advance, along with a plan and measures for taking care of users after the cessation. A DPS only ceases once a receipt of notification for the cessation has been issued by the competent official.

Blockage of the Transmission of Data

If there is a transmission of illegal data through a DPS, the ETDA may order that the transmission of data by or to a user be blocked. If the order is not complied with, the ETDA may file a petition with the court requesting an order to block the transmission of data on the DPS.

Whistleblowers and Trusted Flaggers

The ETDA has the duty to recruit, examine, and certify whistleblowers or trusted flaggers and announce the list of certified whistleblowers on its electronic channel. Providers of specific types of DPSs or large DPSs must collaborate with the whistleblowers on certain aspects, such as by having a channel for whistleblowers to register their accounts and so on.

Agreements between DPSs and Users

Operators must clearly declare terms and conditions to users before and during service usage, addressing certain required items such as terms of service, suspension or termination of services, and service fees.

Competition Supervision

The ETDA and the Office of Trade Competition Commission (OTCC) will collaboratively establish criteria for determining the list of gatekeeping platforms and will publish it within six months of the criteria coming into effect.

The ETDA and the OTCC may issue regulations on behaviors, service conditions, and any other activities that are deemed to be an unfair exercise of gatekeeping platforms’ business power (ex-ante regulations).

Next Steps

The Draft PEA will be disclosed for a hearing involving relevant stakeholders and the public before the first draft is finalized.

For more details on digital platform services in Thailand, or on other aspects of the country’s technology-related laws, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], Pornpan Wichawut at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], or Rada Lamsam at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 17, 2023
In Myanmar, a Union Tax Law is enacted each year to announce the rates of tax set out in the Income Tax Law 1974, the Commercial Tax Law 1990, and the Special Goods Tax Law 2016. The Union Tax Law 2023 (UTL 2023) came into force on April 1, 2023. It sets the rates of special goods tax (SGT), income tax (IT), and commercial tax (CT) for the period of April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, and exempts certain goods and services from these taxes. The key changes implemented by the UTL 2023 are summarized below. Special Goods Tax The UTL 2023 exempts battery electric vehicles (BEVs) from SGT. At the same time, it increases the rate of SGT on imported liquor. Previously, the rate of SGT ranged from 190 MMK per liter to 60 percent of the per-liter price of imported liquor in the previous fiscal year. The UTL 2023 raises the minimum rate to 209 MMK per liter while leaving the upper rate unchanged. Commercial Tax and Customs Tariffs BEVs imported into Myanmar were made exempt from CT under the Law Amending the Union Tax Law 2022. The UTL 2023 extends the exemption until the end of the 2023–24 fiscal year, along with two- and three-wheeler BEVs, BEV batteries, and related parts for specific use in BEVs. The CT exemption for battery charging services for BEVs, also introduced in 2022, has similarly been extended. Following enactment of the UTL 2023, the Ministry of Planning and Finance (MOPF) issued Notification No. 31/2023, reducing to zero the customs tariffs on imported BEVs, including those imported completely built up (CBU), completely knocked down (CKD), or semi-knocked down (SKD). The tariffs on spare parts and materials for BEVs have also been reduced to zero. In addition to exempting BEVs from
Read More
May 15, 2023
Southeast Asia’s remarkable growth as a destination for foreign investment—including a 42 percent increase in 2021, according to a joint ASEAN-UNCTAD report—has brought with it innovation as well as the desire to protect that innovation. Investors are increasingly seeking to patent the proprietary technology that is a crucial component of so many businesses today, and a burning question for patent applicants is whether artificial intelligence (AI) technology and software are patentable in Southeast Asia. The short answer is that it depends, as the patent laws in Southeast Asia are not uniform. Is it Patentable? While AI tools tend to be newer, the older and more familiar question is whether computer software is patentable, and many jurisdictions do have specific rules on this issue. Pure software, or software characterized only by source code, may not be patentable, but it can be protected under copyright laws. AI-related software may involve complex algorithms, datasets, and training methodologies that can be challenging to disclose in a manner that satisfies the enablement requirement in practice. Algorithms, mathematical methods, and abstract ideas are often considered non-patentable subject matter in many jurisdictions. While software implementing AI may involve innovative algorithms, securing patents for algorithms alone can be challenging in some jurisdictions. Also, the patent laws of Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam specifically list computer programs as unpatentable subject matter. However, a possible workaround would be to describe the software as connected to a tangible medium. This method could overcome an unpatentable subject matter rejection during substantive examination. Furthermore, in Indonesia, a computer program can be patentable if its characteristics (i.e., instructions) have a technical effect and function to solve a tangible or intangible problem. The most liberal of Southeast Asia’s patent regimes—Singapore’s—even addresses AI innovations. The country has a special fast-track scheme for examining AI patent
Read More
May 9, 2023
The significance of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly increasing worldwide, and Southeast Asia is no exception, as it plays a leading role in the technological development of many industries. AI has already proven its importance for driving business growth in areas such as e-commerce, finance, and healthcare, but its remarkable potential also raises concerns around privacy. As AI systems are designed to collect and process large amounts of data to improve their operation, it is necessary to balance the development of technology with the protection of individuals’ privacy. Current Frameworks in Southeast Asia This concern has been on regional policymakers’ agendas for many years. The ASEAN Framework on Personal Data Protection, which was adopted in 2016, is not legally binding and has no enforcement mechanism, but it serves as a guide for ASEAN member states in developing their own data protection laws and regulations. Domestic data privacy laws are currently in force in five ASEAN member countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore—while Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Decree is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2023. This presents a challenge for ASEAN members, as adopting AI-related technology can further complicate data protection efforts due to the amount of personal data AI systems collect, as well as the complexity of the data used to train the AI algorithm. Some ASEAN members have also made progress in regulating AI. For instance, Singapore released the Model AI Governance Framework in 2019 and launched the AI Governance Testing Framework and Toolkit in 2022—the world’s first such framework. Similarly, Thailand issued the Artificial Intelligence Ethics Guideline in 2019 to help government agencies in the development, promotion, and use of AI, and in 2023 adopted the Thailand Artificial Intelligence Guidelines to help the private sector develop AI-related work. These guidelines primarily focus on principles
Read More
April 25, 2023
As in many countries around the world, IP laws in Southeast Asia do not currently specify whether works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) are protected by copyright, and there is also uncertainty surrounding the issue of ownership with respect to works created by AI. While changes to the IP legal framework are expected to respond to the rapid development of AI technologies, existing copyright laws of most countries in Southeast Asia explicitly impose the requirement of a human author for copyright protection to arise. AI-Generated Works and the Law This is similar to the position in the United States, where the US Copyright Office issued a policy statement in March 2023 reiterating the US Copyright Act’s requirement of human authorship to register copyright works. The policy document states that when an AI technology determines the expressive elements of the output, the generated materials do not fulfil the human authorship requirement. However, the US Copyright Office also clarified that certain works containing AI-generated materials may nonetheless contain sufficient human authorship for a copyright claim, such as when a human selects or arranges the AI-generated materials in a sufficiently creative way for the resulting work as a whole to constitute an original work of authorship, or when an artist modifies material originally generated by AI technology to a degree that meets the standard for copyright protection. This is distinguishable from the position in countries such as the UK and Hong Kong, where absent specific provisions addressing AI-generated works, such works may arguably be considered by some as computer-generated works, with authorship assigned to the person who arranges for creation of the work. New Challenges from Generative AI The ongoing legal uncertainties surrounding the ownership and protection of AI-generated works create practical challenges for businesses that use or develop generative AI tools.
Read More