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​ 

April 30, 2025
With a favorable crypto climate from the Trump administration in the United States, Thailand is ready for digital asset platforms and has market appetite. This article highlights the country’s regulatory initiatives supporting the growth of digital assets like crypto, stablecoins, and smart contracts, along with efforts to establish clear oversight. Bank of Thailand Sandbox Stablecoins used as a medium of payment, particularly those pegged to the Thai baht (THB) for public use, are considered as mirroring fiat currency, which violates the Currency Act B.E. 2501 (1958). These can also be classified as e-money under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017). The Bank of Thailand (BOT) urges issuers to engage in preconsultation prior to implementation, due to concerns about stablecoins being used in place of THB currency. Other FX- or asset-backed stablecoins are not recognized as legal tender under Thai law, and users must bear their own risks. The BOT recognizes the potential and benefits of these technologies in reducing operational costs for financial service providers and addressing the needs of financial service users. Consequently, the BOT issued a sandbox framework in June 2024. In particular, the enhanced regulatory sandbox allows nonlicensed entities to test financial innovations in controlled conditions. These tests must have a clearly defined duration (usually under one year) and involve a limited user group with an exit strategy. Several programmable payment projects—automated transactions with predefined conditions for the payment of goods and services—were piloted under this sandbox, which closed for applications in September 2024. Eight participants are planning to launch their test runs this year, some of which include asset tokenization or exchange global stablecoins in their programmable payment projects. Thai Securities and Exchange Commission Sandbox Given that digital asset businesses fall under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018), supervised by
Read More
April 30, 2025
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is accepting public comments until May 2, 2025, on three draft notifications that will institute an enhanced supervision scheme and impose additional requirements for systemically important retail payment system (SIRPS) operators to align with international standards and encourage open infrastructure and competition. The SIRPS operators will be determined by the BOT from the “designated payment system operators” under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017). SIRPS Designation The BOT will announce a list of payment system operators designated as SIRPS operators and thus subject to enhanced supervision. The BOT will evaluate whether the payment system operator should be deemed a SIRPS operator when it meets the criteria in either the BOT’s quantitative or qualitative assessments, which cover the following: Quantitative assessment: The payment system’s transaction values, market share, cross-border payment network scale and value, and settlement with other financial market infrastructure. Qualitative assessment: The payment system’s function as a part of the country’s payment system infrastructure, the significance of the system users’ roles in the payment services, the substitutability of the payment system, and the impact level on the public and users in the event of an emergency or system suspension. Supervision of SIRPS Business Operations SIRPS operators will be subject to heightened supervision in three areas, in addition to various BOT regulations on designated payment system supervision, as follows: Governance: SIRPS operators will be required to have a balanced board composition with an independent director and directors with varied expertise, establish subcommittees to assist the board in supervising the operator’s compliance with its policy and strategy, and have senior executives overseeing risk and technology security separately from the executives overseeing business operations. Risk management and security: SIRPS operators will be required to have comprehensive risk management to ensure system stability and security. This
Read More
April 28, 2025
In recent years, Vietnam has positioned itself among the leading countries in the world in terms of digital asset ownership and trading volume. This rapid adoption reflects the country’s growing digital economy and the increasing engagement of individuals and businesses in blockchain-based financial activities. Central to this growth are Resolution No. 57-NQ/TW of the Politburo dated December 22, 2024, on breakthroughs in science, technology, innovation, and national digital transformation with a vision to 2045 (“Resolution 57”) and Resolution No. 03/NQ-CP of the Government dated January 9, 2025, promulgating the Action Plan to Implement Resolution 57 (“Resolution 03”), which outline a flexible and innovative policy framework that embraces pilot programs for emerging technologies to lay the groundwork for Vietnam’s legislative framework concerning cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. Regulatory clarity in terms of digital assets and blockchain technologies is now more critical than ever for businesses and investors. In light of this, Vietnam is currently in the process of introducing three key legal instruments, with drafts of the Law on Digital Technology Industry (“Draft DTI Law”), Resolution of the National Assembly on the Establishment of Regional and International Financial Centers in Vietnam (“Draft Financial Center Resolution”), and Resolution of the Government on the Pilot Implementation of Crypto Asset Markets in Vietnam (“Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution”) nearing promulgation. Current Regulatory Direction and Schedule Vietnam’s regulatory framework for crypto assets and blockchain has been in a developmental stage since 2017, focusing on directions, plans, and schedules rather than established regulations. In February 2024, under Decision No. 194/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) was assigned to draft a legal framework to either prohibit or regulate virtual assets and service providers by May 2025, signaling a clearer regulatory direction. In March 2025, Directive No. 05/CT-TTg of the Prime Minister directed the MOF
Read More
April 18, 2025
On April 12, 2025, Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in the Government Gazette, with the regulation taking effect the following day. Drafts of the amendment had been shared in recent months, and the final amendment of the decree contains some additional key revisions, such as narrowing the business operators subject to the decree’s requirements, reducing operators’ obligations, and establishing collaboration between relevant stakeholders to tackle technology crime. These key revisions to the amendment are detailed below. Business operators subject to the decree: The business operators covered under the decree now include only payment service providers under the Payment System Act and digital asset operators under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses. Digital platform services under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Businesses That Are Subject to Prior Notification are no longer within the scope of the decree. Definition of technology crime: The final version of the amendment removed the expanded definition of technology crime that had been included in a previous draft, leaving the decree’s existing definition unchanged. Telecommunications provider obligations: Mobile and telecommunications service providers now have an obligation to monitor and screen for content that may be related to technology crime and suspend SIM cards when instructed to do so by the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). Transaction and account suspension: The amendment removes the decree’s complex transaction suspension procedures and leaves room for business-specific regulators (e.g., Bank of Thailand, Securities and Exchange Commission, NBTC) to impose various technology crime suspension requirements on business operators under their supervision. The newly established Center for Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes can also notify financial institutions and business operators of names or digital asset wallet addresses that may be related to technology crime,
Read More