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 11, 2024

Thailand Releases Draft of Amended Electronic Transactions Act

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has released a draft amended Electronic Transactions Act (ETA), which aims to overhaul the current version of the law from 2001 to correct its enforcement limitations and update the ETA to be consistent with current electronic transactions practice. The draft ETA is open for public comment until December 20, 2024.

The draft ETA introduces a new supervisory scheme that (1) recognizes electronic transactions executed by both current and future technologies without having to enact regulations recognizing the technology, (2) replaces the licensing, registration, and notification scheme for electronic transaction service providers with a trust-mark scheme, and (3) introduces a new mechanism to regulate electronic transaction service providers.

The major amendments under the draft ETA address:

  • Relationship with other relevant laws. The draft ETA is designated as the primary law governing electronic transactions, whether between private parties or between private parties and the state. However, if specific laws—including those on electronic administrative procedures—prescribe methods for conducting particular electronic transactions, those laws will prevail.
  • Definitions. The draft ETA revises some existing terms, such as “transaction,” which is now more clearly defined as “any act relating to civil or commercial activities, including administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and any other actions by government agencies or officials.” It also introduces new definitions, such as “biometric data,” “automated system,” and “electronic seal.”
  • Electronic transaction reliability. The draft ETA now clearly provides that electronic transactions executed using a method or an electronic method stipulated by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) as reliable are themselves presumed to be “reliable.” In case of a challenge over the implementation of a certified method or certified service, the challenging party bears the burden of proof and related expenses.
  • Electronic transferable instruments. The draft ETA adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (ETRs) in recognizing ETRs (e.g., electronic bills of lading). The recognized electronic transferable instruments (the term generally used in Thai law) will need to meet requirements such as inclusion of required information for the transferable instrument, utilization of a reliable method for electronic transferable instrument execution, and adherence to electronic transferable instrument-related rights controls (e.g., endorsement, transfer, and amendment of the electronic transferable instruments).
  • Supervision of service providers. The draft ETA eliminates the licensing, registration, and notification scheme for various services (e.g., e-signature, identification proofing and authentication, and registration and certification of websites and domain names). Instead, service providers will be deemed qualified if they comply with the prescribed criteria. Service providers may ask the ETDA to additionally certify their services as reliable, but this is not required. The ETDA can also unilaterally certify reliable electronic transaction service providers. Once the ETDA certifies a service provider, any electronic transaction conducted through that provider (in the certified areas) is deemed reliable, and the certified service providers benefit from liability exemptions under the law. Providers who have already obtained licenses or registered their services under the existing ETA are also recognized as reliable service providers under the draft ETA. The ETDA may periodically announce the names of service providers with reliability issues, resulting in those service providers and their users losing the benefits previously conferred by certification.
  • Supervision of digital platforms. Digital platform services are not supervised under the draft ETA. However, even though the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services was issued under a provision of the ETA that is not included in the draft ETA, the royal decree will remain in effect and continue to regulate digital platform services until the expected new law on digital platform services (currently under development) is enacted.

For more details on electronic transaction services in Thailand, or any aspect of the country’s technology-related laws and regulations, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins’ Thailand digital platform specialists Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Pornpan Wichawut at [email protected], Rada Lamsam at [email protected], or Rujaporn Paritsantik at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More