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

July 2, 2026

Thailand Releases New Draft Artificial Intelligence Act

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content.

Scope and Extraterritorial Application

The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note:

  • This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand.
  • Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability.
  • Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree.

Risk-Based Classification Framework

The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories:

  • Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible for national AI planning.
  • High-risk AI. High-risk AI systems are those designated by royal decree as affecting national security, health, environment, energy, telecommunications, transport, or public utilities.
  • Designated AI systems. A subsequent royal decree may additionally require regulator notification, registration, or licensing of certain AI systems before deployment.

Obligations for High-Risk AI System Providers and Deployers

Providers of high-risk AI must develop systems that are efficient and fit for purpose, transparent in operation, subject to meaningful human control, fair and nondiscriminatory, and aligned with foreseeable risks. The regulator may announce risk oversight guidelines covering 13 areas, including risk management, bias prevention, cybersecurity, human oversight, transparency, and complaint handling.

Deployers must implement risk management systems, follow provider instructions, assign capable oversight personnel, mitigate damage from AI-related incidents, retain operational logs for a minimum period (six months under the Thai text), and notify authorities of unforeseen risks.

Transparency Obligations for AI-Generated Content

The draft act introduces transparency requirements for content generation by AI systems:

  • Developers of AI systems capable of generating or modifying images, audio, or video must assess risks, implement mitigation measures, and embed machine-readable marks to identify AI-generated content.
  • Persons who introduce AI-generated content relating to national security, election-related content, investment credibility, food or drug properties, impersonation, or illegal acts into public systems must disclose that it is AI-generated or AI-modified content.
  • Platform providers face specific obligations, including risk assessment, providing reporting channels, verifying AI content, displaying labels, and preparing annual operational summaries.

Data Localization and Contract-Controlled AI Businesses

The draft act grants the forthcoming national AI planning committee authority over data and contracting requirements in sensitive sectors:

  • The committee may designate “contract-controlled AI businesses” applicable to services provided to government or critical infrastructure agencies, and may prescribe mandatory contract terms addressing data processing, risk management, security, modification and termination procedures, and post-termination obligations.
  • The committee may also require data processing within Thailand for AI services of national importance. This introduces uncertainty for cloud-based AI services and may require infrastructure investment in Thailand.

Strict Liability Regime

The draft act imposes joint liability for damages regardless of willful act or negligence—a strict liability standard. Defenses are limited to force majeure, the victim’s own act or omission, or compliance with an official order.

Enforcement and Penalties

The draft act establishes an enforcement framework, with escalating consequences for noncompliance:

  • The regulator may order providers and deployers to rectify insufficient measures.
  • With ministerial approval, the regulator may petition the court to order temporary service suspension, product recall, or deployment suspension.
  • If providers fail to comply, the regulator may petition the court to order ISPs to block AI system dissemination in Thailand.

Administrative fines range from THB 1 million to THB 5 million, depending on the nature of the violation.

AI Product Launches, Regulatory Sandbox, and Self-Regulation

The draft act also establishes a regulatory sandbox framework for testing AI systems in regulated sectors, data-sharing infrastructure through Thailand’s Big Data Institute (a national public organization), and frameworks for self-regulation and best practices. Compliance with self-regulatory best practices may also serve as selection criteria for government investment promotion programs.

Implementation Approach and Next Steps

There will be a phased implementation of the draft act’s measures. Core measures related to the launching of AI products take effect immediately upon publication. Risk control, supervision, and serious incident provisions take effect 180 days after publication, providing a compliance preparation window for affected businesses.

Organizations that develop, deploy, or rely on AI systems affecting persons in Thailand should begin assessing their compliance. They are also encouraged to submit comments on the draft act to the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society during the public hearing period.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More