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​ 

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 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More