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 20, 2025

Thailand Releases Draft Platform Economy Act for Public Comment

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s official draft Platform Economy Act (PEA) was released on January 15, 2025, for public comment until February 15, 2025. The draft PEA is positioned as a general or overarching law for digital intermediary services and digital platform service businesses. The official release of the draft came after the sharing of the set of principles that would form the basis for the official draft PEA in November 2024. The draft PEA incorporates those principles and adds more detailed provisions.

Especially notable is that the draft PEA requires all intermediary service providers and online platform operators—both Thai and foreign—to appoint a point of contact to liaise with the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) if they have any users in Thailand. However, the draft PEA does not mandate establishment of a local entity in Thailand.

Types of Intermediary Services

The draft PEA sets out a three-tiered classification system for different types of service providers, ordered from fewest obligations to most:

  • Intermediary services. Intermediary services are further divided into three subcategories: mere conduit, caching, and hosting. Each type of intermediary service has different safe harbor provisions, which define their scope and limitations.
  • Online platform services. Online platform services are defined as involving “the provision of intermediary services in the hosting category that involve facilitating the matching of various types of users to enable transactions or interactions, whether or not a fee is charged. Additionally, such services may include other provisions to facilitate these transactions or interactions.” Key obligations for online platform providers include:
  • Informing users of their rights and duties under relevant laws
  • Implementing a notice-and-action mechanism
  • Disclosing advertising information
  • Publishing T&Cs, including details such as service fees, algorithms, and complaint management mechanisms.
  • Very large online platform services. Very large online platform services (VLOPs) have extra duties beyond regular online platform services, including reporting information, tracking users selling goods or services, suspending those who violate laws, preparing annual transparency reports, and giving prior notice for term changes. An online platform service will be classified as a VLOP if it:
  • Has annual revenue from online platform services in Thailand exceeding THB 1 billion;
  • Has an average monthly domestic user count exceeding 6 million; or
  • Poses significant risks to the economy, social security, or public well-being, as determined by the Digital Platform Economy Committee based on ETDA recommendations.

Designated Gatekeepers

The draft PEA also establishes “gatekeepers,” which refers to the 10 core platform service providers that:

  • Have a significant impact on Thailand’s economy or society—achieved by generating annual revenue of over THB 7 billion from core services in the country;
  • Act as an important gateway for business users to reach end users—evidenced by having more than 15 million end users per month and over 10,000 business users annually in the country; and
  • Have an entrenched and durable position—demonstrated by meeting the criteria for the number of end users and business users in the country consistently over the past three years.

Operators must provide information to the Platform Economy Committee for consideration of gatekeeper designation. The committee will officially announce the designated gatekeepers.

Under the draft PEA, gatekeepers have 14 additional obligations, including prohibiting discrimination against business users, allowing users to freely communicate and enter into contracts with end users, and disclosing advertising costs and other fees.

Trusted Flaggers

The draft PEA defines a trusted flagger as “a legal entity or group of individuals with specific qualifications or expertise, certified by the ETDA, to report suspected violations to the ETDA or online platform providers.” The draft PEA does not specify the specific duties of trusted flaggers; however, it allows the ETDA to implement measures to encourage or incentivize individuals to report suspected violations. Such measures may include granting special privileges, providing rewards, issuing certificates, or registering effective trusted flaggers.

Penalties

The draft PEA imposes phinai regulatory fines (a certain type of fine in Thai law that exists outside of the criminal or administrative legal mechanisms) and criminal penalties for violations of its provisions, with fines varying based on the severity of the offense. The maximum phinai regulatory fine is up to 0.3% of the global revenue generated from the operator’s digital platform services. Additionally, a digital platform’s operations may be temporarily suspended if the provider fails to address illegal activities conducted through the platform. Separately, potential criminal penalties focus primarily on protecting trade secrets that officials acquire during the course of their duties.

Regulatory Transition

Digital platform services must notify the ETDA under the Royal Decree on Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses. This will be considered as reporting under the PEA. Providers required to report under the PEA must update the ETDA within 120 days of the PEA’s effective date.

For more information on compliance with Thailand’s requirements for digital platform services, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins’ digital platform specialists Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Pornpan Wichawut at [email protected], Rada Lamsam at [email protected], or Karnravee Jitvilai at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Fintech

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More