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​ 

March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
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