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

June 11, 2026

Thailand Set to Overhaul Its E-Transactions Framework

Subscribe to Updates

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 or intervention was involved in the transaction process.

The draft, however, also introduces safeguards for unexpected automated actions. Where an automated system acts in a manner that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the party using the system, the action may not be legally binding if the counterparty knew or should reasonably have known that such action was unintended or unforeseeable.

In addition, the draft ETA provides protection for input errors made by individuals interacting with another party’s automated system. If the system does not provide a means to correct the error, the individual may withdraw the erroneous electronic communication, provided that notice of the error is given promptly after discovery; and the individual has not received or benefited from the relevant goods or services.

These new requirements would impact the use of AI, especially agentic AI, in business operations.

New Obligations for E-Transaction Service Providers

The draft ETA proposes to replace the current mandatory licensing regime applicable to certain electronic transaction businesses with a voluntary certification framework.

The draft ETA identifies seven categories of electronic transaction services: (1) identity verification, (2) electronic signature services, (3) timestamping, (4) electronic data transmission and storage, (5) website or domain name registration/certification, (6) electronic transferable record systems, and (7) other services prescribed by ministerial regulation. Service providers in these categories must comply with detailed operational duties, including maintaining reliable systems, processes, and personnel; implementing risk management frameworks; publishing electronic channels for complaints; and enforcing cybersecurity measures together with protocols for notifying, remedying, and mitigating damage from incidents.

Providers that clearly disclose the purpose and limitations of their services are shielded from liability where users act outside or beyond those disclosed boundaries.

Shifting Criminal Penalties to Civil Liability

The draft ETA removes the existing criminal penalties imposed on service providers operating without the required license, registration, or notification. These violations currently carry penalties of imprisonment for up to three years and/or fines of up to THB 300,000. This change aligns with the draft ETA’s shift from a mandatory licensing regime to a voluntary certification framework. Under the proposed framework, enforcement would instead focus on civil liability. In particular, service providers that fail to comply with their duties prescribed in the Draft ETA may be held liable for damages suffered by users or other relevant parties.

Implications for Businesses

The draft ETA carries several key implications for businesses operating in Thailand:

  • Digital-first policy. Organizations should evaluate whether internal workflows—especially government filings, notices, and contract execution—can migrate to fully electronic processes.
  • E-signatures and biometrics. Organizations using biometric authentication (fingerprints, facial recognition) for contract execution will have clearer statutory backing but must ensure compliance with Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act.
  • Burden of proof. Businesses should proactively align their systems with ETDA-prescribed standards.
  • New digital methods. Businesses may rely on e-signatures, e-stamping, e-delivery, and digital identity verification with greater legal certainty, reducing operational friction and supporting digital transformation.
  • Automated systems. Businesses should review their internal procedures and legal limitations for automated systems, AI tools, and digital contracting.
  • Licensing regime. The draft ETA shifts from regulatory approval to a standards-based framework. While licensing burdens may decrease, greater emphasis will be placed on ETDA-prescribed standards, operational reliability, and civil liability.
  • Civil liability shift. Despite reduced criminal exposure, service providers must maintain compliance and operational standards, as failures may result in civil liability for damages.

Next Steps

After the public hearing, the draft ETA will be revisited and further proposed to the parliament for consideration and approval before enactment. This process may take up to a year.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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