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​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More