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

May 15, 2025

Thailand Resumes Development of AI Regulatory Framework

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) held an explanatory session on the draft principles and regulatory approaches of the country’s planned artificial intelligence (AI) law on May 2, 2025. This came after a lull of two years following the initial release of draft legislation on AI.

In the session, the ETDA explained that the earlier drafts were modeled after the EU’s legal framework for AI, but given the evolving Thai legal and technological landscape, it is now necessary to revisit and refine the drafts to ensure they remain relevant and effective in the local context. To aid in this process, the ETDA will accept public comments on the draft principles of the AI law until June 9, 2025.

Based on gap analysis and a comparative study of how different countries have addressed AI issues, the ETDA’s draft AI law principles are structured into five key areas. These are described below.

1. Risk-Based Requirements

The draft principles outline a set of approaches that the legislation will take toward mitigating risk:

Delegation of powers to enforcement agency or sectoral regulators

The primary legislation will not directly specify a list of prohibited risks or high-risk types of AI. Instead, it will empower an enforcement agency or relevant sectoral regulators to determine and issue such lists. This approach allows regulators in each specific industry to assess the necessity of risk classifications within their respective sectors, based on the principle that sectoral regulators are best positioned to understand the specific risks in their domains. These regulators are expected to issue subordinate legislation in alignment with the overall framework. Meanwhile, the central enforcement agency will coordinate oversight across sectors and cover areas not under the jurisdiction of any specific regulator.

Duties of high-risk AI providers

Providers of AI deemed by the enforcement agency or sectoral regulators to be high-risk will have certain additional requirements:

  • Risk management frameworks: High-risk AI providers must implement risk management systems (e.g., ISO/IEC42001:2023 or NIST Risk Management Framework). The draft principles draw a “duty of care” boundary to clarify the basis for judicial discretion and to provide a reference for government agencies in their enforcement. Failure to comply with the prescribed standards does not automatically constitute a violation; however, if such failure results in harm, the provider may bear liability for a wrongful act. The framework is designed to align with international standards and support consistency across sectors, including through secondary regulations issued by the enforcement body.
  • Local legal representatives: Offshore high-risk AI providers will be required to appoint a local representative in Thailand to ensure effective enforcement of the law for all service providers. The enforcement agency must also be notified of the appointment of a legal representative.
  • Serious incident reporting: High-risk AI providers will be required to report serious incidents to the enforcement agency.

Duties of high-risk AI deployers

Entities deploying high-risk AI must ensure human oversight of AI systems, maintain operational logs, ensure the quality of input data, and notify affected individuals in cases where the AI system may have an impact on their rights or interests. Deployers must also cooperate with investigations if AI causes harm, and may be held liable if their use falls below the standard of care expected of professionals.

2. Measures in Support of Innovation

The supportive principles—most of which can be implemented without new legislation—focus on key areas:

  • Data: Introducing exceptions to permit the use of online data for purposes such as text and data mining, similar to the EU approach, while commercial use will still be subject to rightsholder reservations.
  • Sandbox: Testing in real-world conditions will be permitted under controlled environments to ensure that regulatory design aligns with practical realities. This will require an agreement between private entities and the relevant government agency overseeing the sandbox, allowing the use of personal data originally collected for other purposes to develop AI, provided it serves the public interest. Entities operating within a sandbox and acting in good faith should not be penalized for any harm that arises during the experimental phase, in line with a safe harbor principle. However, this safe harbor will not exempt participants from civil liability for damages.

3. General Principles

Some general principles guiding the development of Thailand’s legislative approach to AI include:

  • Nondiscrimination: Prohibiting the denial of legal effect to contracts or administrative decisions made using AI.
  • AI as a tool: Affirming that all actions generated by AI must be attributable to a human, regardless of human intervention. Developers and users cannot escape liability by citing unpredictability alone.
  • Protection against unexpected actions: Establishing exceptions to protect individuals from being bound by AI-generated acts that arise from unforeseeable errors. Such expectations would apply only if the affected party could not have reasonably foreseen the AI action and the counterparty either knew or could have known.
  • Right to explanation and appeal: Granting individuals the right to understand how AI systems are developed and the ability to appeal decisions made by or with AI, potentially requiring human involvement in decision making. These rights, which are under consideration and may apply only to high-risk AI, include the right to be notified when AI is used, the right to an explanation of how AI made a decision, and the right to contest the decision.

4. Regulator

The current proposal does not call for the establishment of a new regulator; instead, it designates the existing AI Governance Center (AIGC) under the ETDA to oversee the implementation of the law. The AIGC’s roles include conducting research and development on AI governance, providing guidance to organizations on AI adoption, and supporting pilot projects and regulatory sandboxes. Additional responsibilities include monitoring global trends, compiling national AI-readiness data, and developing cooperative mechanisms both domestically and internationally.

5. Legal Enforcement

The draft AI law empowers the enforcement agency and relevant sectoral regulators to jointly issue administrative orders requiring AI providers or deployers to cease the provision or use of prohibited or high-risk AI. If such parties fail to comply and the AI service is hosted on a digital platform, authorities may order the platform provider to remove or block access to the service. For prohibited AI embedded in physical products, enforcement may extend to seizure of the items, including through entry into premises. If the noncompliant AI service is hosted outside digital platforms or a platform fails to comply, the regulators may coordinate with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to order internet service providers to block access within Thailand.

Status and Outlook

The ETDA will take the comments into consideration as part of the legislative revision process. After reviewing the draft legislation based on the feedback received in this round, a revised version of the draft law will be published for another public hearing.

Business operators should review the proposed principles of the draft AI law and submit their comments, if any, to the ETDA. They should also start monitoring the development of this law to ensure timely compliance. In particular, operators that develop, use, or rely on high-risk AI systems should begin assessing their current risk management structures, data governance practices, and human oversight mechanisms.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
Read More
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More
February 10, 2026
Data center and cloud investments are forming a major focus of private-sector investment in Thailand, with tech giants like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as numerous telecom and data center companies, committing significant outlays to data center and cloud development. The country’s Board of Investment (BOI) approved projects worth THB 1.87 trillion in 2025, and THB 746 billion of this was from planned data center investments—by far the largest amount from any single industry. Thailand’s swift rise as a regional data center hub is fueled by surging demand for cloud, AI, and digital services, as well as large-scale investments from global tech firms. The country’s strategic location, competitive power costs, robust fiber infrastructure, expanding IT talent, and supportive government policies—including BOI incentives and streamlined approvals—have made it an attractive destination for scalable and sustainable digital infrastructure investments. The BOI’s proactive approach in updating promoted categories and providing both tax and non-tax incentives further ensures Thailand’s continued growth in this sector. 2025 BOI Changes for Data Centers In the middle of 2025, the BOI responded to the remarkable trend by updating investment‑promotion categories across various sectors (e.g., machinery and electrical equipment, public utilities, digital and innovative industries) to accommodate growing investment in data‑center projects. Before the change, which was detailed in a notification that has applied to investment promotion applications submitted from July 1, 2025, onward, data‑center projects under BOI promotion were granted a single A1 incentive (an eight‑year corporate income‑tax exemption) and subject to one uniform set of conditions. The July 2025 notification restructured promotion for data centers into two categories based on power‑usage efficiency: high‑efficiency data centers and other data centers. Under these rules, qualified high‑efficiency data centers are eligible for an eight‑year corporate income tax (CIT) exemption, while for other data centers this exemption is
Read More
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
Read More