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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
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