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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
Read More
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