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 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
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