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​ 

March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More
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