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 13, 2024

Thailand to Set Additional Obligations for Specific Digital Marketplaces

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee has publicized a new draft notification detailing additional duties for specific marketplace digital platform service operators under Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022). The draft notification, which is open for public comments until November 30, 2024, aims to provide enhanced protection for users of “specific marketplace platforms” (defined below). Some key points of the draft notification are detailed below.

Scope

The draft notification applies to “marketplace digital platform services,” which refers to digital platform services that serve as an intermediary for buying or exchanging goods and provide services to facilitate sale transactions, such as providing communication systems (e.g., chat features), shopping carts, delivery arrangements, and supplemental payment processing facilitation.

“Specific marketplace platforms” refers to Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Services, which covers digital platform services that pose risks to financial and commercial security, the reliability and credibility of data messaging systems, or potential harm to the public, and that have a high level of potential impact based on the criteria for assessing the impact of digital platform service operations.

Key Obligations

  • Registration. The draft notification requires the marketplace operators mentioned above to be registered as legal entities in Thailand.
  • Terms and conditions. The draft notification details additional obligations relating to marketplace operators’ terms and conditions:
    • In addition to existing obligations prescribed in the Royal Decree and the relevant subordinate laws, the draft notification emphasizes that the terms and conditions must be in Thai, clear, accessible, and understandable, and may include graphical elements to aid explanation.
    • The terms and conditions must prescribe conditions relating to the sale of products subject to specific standards, such as those restricted under the Food Act, the Drugs Act, and the Industrial Product Standards Act. Such conditions include requiring business users (e.g., merchants on the platform) to obtain and present necessary licenses, permits, or certificates from relevant authorities to the marketplace operator, to counter the sale or advertising of prohibited or infringing products.
  • Verification and authentication. The draft notification proposes two options for the verification of business users who sell products subject to specific standards on the platform:
    • Option one is for marketplace operators to collect certain information about business users and verify their identity by systems that at least meet the Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) requirements.
    • Option two is for marketplace operators to collect and verify information such as the name, address, phone number, email address, and identification documents, as well as bank account details and registration numbers of legal entities, for verification. They must also check this information against the government’s database or request reliable evidence from business users. In this regard, certain information of business users must be made available on the platform for all users (e.g., consumers) to check.
  • Information retention and government oversight. Under the draft notification, marketplace operators must either (1) have in place a business user registry and submit it to the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) every month, or (2) record business users’ information and provide it to the relevant authorities to support the enforcement of other relevant laws, such as the Food Act, the Drugs Act, and the Industrial Product Standards Act. The retention of the business user registry and relevant information is now proposed to be at least 10 years.
  • Sales and advertisement control. Apart from the terms and conditions requirements above, marketplace operators must:
    • Have details relating to business users’ products subject to specific standards available on the platform for users’ examination. These details include, for example, pictures and descriptions; product registration numbers and marks; name, contact details, and other information of manufacturers, importers, and sellers; storage location; and copyright-related details.
    • Check the details of products subject to specific standards against relevant state agencies’ databases and verify the details provided by business users.
    • Display a mark to inform users which products sold on the platform require standard certification, licenses, or permits.
    • Record information relating to user reviews of products, including users’ names and contact details, and implement mechanisms to protect business users from defaming or false reviews or comments.
  • Notice-and-takedown mechanism. Marketplace operators must establish a notice-and-takedown mechanism to allow users to report illegal goods, prohibited goods, and intellectual property rights infringement. The operators must examine and notify users and business users of actions being undertaken within 24 hours and must allow business users to appeal the complaint within 30 days upon receiving a notice from the operators.
  • Actions against noncompliance. Marketplace operators must establish measures against business users who violate or fail to comply with the terms of service, including suspension or termination of services.
  • Reporting requirements. Marketplace operators are required to report on compliance with the draft notification’s requirements to the ETDA together with the annual report every year.

Status

After the public hearing period, which runs until November 15, 2024, the draft notification may undergo further revisions before it is issued and made legally binding.

For more information or assistance regarding the draft notification and public hearing period, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], or Karnravee Jitvilai at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
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