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

November 25, 2024

Thailand Seeks Comments on Principles of Draft Platform Economy Act

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has released the set of principles that will form the official draft Platform Economy Act (PEA) for a public hearing period that runs until December 15, 2024. The PEA is likely to be positioned as a general or overarching law for digital intermediary services and digital platform service businesses.

In January 2024, an early, unofficial version of the proposed law had been circulated among a limited group of operators in certain industries to get comments for the working group charged with the PEA’s development. Now, however, the proposed principles that will underpin the official draft PEA have been released publicly to gather comments, feedback, and suggestions from any interested stakeholders.

The principles of the draft PEA cover two main areas: user protection and fair competition. The key details in these two areas are outlined below.

User Protection

The main regulator supervising the law’s user protection elements will be the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA).

The draft PEA is expected to impose user protection obligations on service providers based on their nature, size, and risk level. The principles set out a three-tiered classification system for service providers that will be covered under the draft PEA, as detailed below, ordered from fewest obligations to most:

  • Intermediary Service Provider: This describes a service provider acting as an intermediary between a sender and recipient of information on a computer network, the internet, or a telecommunications network.

    Service providers likely to fall under this category include cloud service providers and web hosting providers.

    Intermediary service providers may be further categorized into the following subtypes:

    • Mere conduit service providers;
    • Caching service providers;
    • Hosting service providers; and
    • Other service providers as prescribed in ministerial regulations.

  • Online Platform: This refers to an intermediary service provider offering data storage services that connect various types of users to enable transactions or interactions between them, whether or not fees are charged. These providers may also offer additional services to facilitate the transactions or interactions.

    Service providers likely to fall under this category include social media platforms, online marketplace platforms, ride-hailing platforms, and search engines.

  • Very Large Online Platform: Online platforms that have a significant impact on the country’s economy and society are categorized as “very large online platforms.” To qualify as a very large online platform, a platform must:

    • Have annual revenue from digital platform services in Thailand exceeding THB 1 billion;
    • Have an average monthly domestic user count exceeding six million; and
    • Pose significant risks to the economy, social security, or public well-being, as determined by the Digital Platform Economy Committee based on ETDA recommendations.

    The ETDA must officially announce the list of the platforms meeting all three criteria before imposing additional obligations.

All types of service providers identified above must appoint a point of contact (POC) responsible for coordination with the ETDA, and notify the ETDA of the POC’s contact information. This requirement applies to both onshore and offshore service providers—a difference from the similar requirement under the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses that are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022) (the “DPS Royal Decree”), which limits this obligation to offshore providers only.

The draft PEA principles also introduce a safe harbor mechanism, which exempts intermediary service providers from liability for offenses related to transmitted or stored data if they can prove “no involvement” in the offense. There are three specific safe harbor rules that apply to each type of intermediary service provider. Online platforms, as defined above, qualify as “hosting service providers” and must meet the burden of proof for hosting service providers under the safe harbor rule.

Additional Obligations for Platforms

Online platforms must also fulfill the following obligations:

  • Publication of terms and conditions (T&Cs). Under the Draft PEA, all online platforms are generally required to disclose their T&Cs, unlike under the DPS Royal Decree, which limits this obligation to certain marketplace platforms and search engines.
  • Collaboration with trusted flaggers. Online platforms must work with trusted flaggers—certified individuals who report illegal activities—by providing a dedicated channel for them to open accounts and submit reports.
  • Notice and action mechanism. Online platforms must provide a channel for complaints and reports of illegal activities on the platform.

In addition to these obligations, very large online platforms also have the following obligations:

  • Reporting of required information to the ETDA. The draft PEA requires only very large online platforms to report certain information to the ETDA. This differs from the DPS Royal Decree, under which the obligation to notify the ETDA applies to all in-scope digital platform services.
  • Preparation of an annual transparency report. Under the draft PEA, very large online platforms must prepare an annual transparency report on their digital platform services and keep it publicly accessible at all times.
  • Appointment of an independent external auditor. Very large online platforms must appoint an independent external auditor to conduct audits covering (1) IT systems and (2) compliance with legal requirements.

Extraterritoriality

The principles of the draft PEA address the proposed extraterritorial scope of the law, with the draft PEA applying to platforms meeting criteria similar to those in the DPS Royal Decree—such as offering payments in Thai baht or displaying all or part of their content in Thai. Very large online platforms located outside Thailand that meet any of the criteria will be deemed to serve users in Thailand and will have to report the prescribed information to the ETDA.

Fair Competition

In the area of fair competition, the draft PEA aims to regulate “gatekeepers” (typically market actors that have significant control or influence over access to goods, services, or markets) by outlining both the criteria for being designated as a gatekeeper and the obligations that apply to parties that have been so designated. The main regulator supervising the fair competition elements of the law is the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT).

Designation of Gatekeepers

In deciding whether to designate a platform as a gatekeeper, the Platform Economy Committee will:

  1. Determine if the platform qualifies as a core platform service (CPS). Ten types of services are classified as CPSs, including online search engines, online social networking services, and virtual assistants.
  2. Consider whether the CPS meets all relevant gatekeeper criteria. Currently, this includes three proposed qualitative criteria—(1) having a significant impact on Thailand’s economy or society, (2) being an important gateway for business users to reach end users, and (3) having an entrenched and durable position—as well as additional quantitative criteria.

CPS providers must conduct a self-assessment if they meet the qualitative and quantitative gatekeeper criteria and must report the prescribed information to the Digital Platform Economy Committee, which will review the submitted information and announce the list of designated gatekeepers.

Gatekeeper Obligations

After being included in the list announced by the Digital Platform Economy Committee, designated gatekeepers will be subject to additional obligations under the draft PEA. The details of these obligations are still uncertain but pertain largely to two main issues:

  • Required and prohibited actions. Two sets of rules under this ex-ante approach (imposing rules that focus on preventing potential issues or risks before they occur) concern:
    • Most favored nation (MFN) clauses. Designated gatekeepers must not set prices or conditions or take actions that discriminate against or restrict users offering similar products or services to those the designated gatekeepers provide on their platforms.
    • Anti-steering provisions. Designated gatekeepers must allow users to freely communicate with or promote their products or services to consumers without additional charges, whether through the platform or through other channels provided by the service provider.
  • Modification of T&Cs. Designated gatekeepers must allow at least 15 days for user feedback before modifying T&Cs. A summary of the feedback and any amendments must be submitted to the TCCT. This obligation applies only to designated gatekeepers, which is different from the similar obligation under the DPS Royal Decree.

Status

Comments on the principles of the draft PEA will be accepted until December 15, 2024. All input gathered from stakeholders will be presented to the Council of State, which will then evaluate the principles’ appropriateness, assess potential impacts, and contribute to the development of the final draft PEA.

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

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More