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 5, 2019

Thailand’s Legal System Undergoes Major Digital Reforms

Informed Counsel

Thailand has a strong reputation for modernizing digital business regulations in line with international standards, in order to make the jurisdiction an attractive location for international businesses, and its push to do so sometimes has extremely wide-reaching effects on the legal system as a whole. A recent example is Thailand’s Electronic Transaction Act B.E. 2544 (2001) (ETA), which came into effect on April 15, 2019, aiming to mitigate or eliminate obstacles to electronic transactions and harmonize Thailand’s electronic transaction law with the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts. In doing so, it has had enormous practical impacts on Thai contract law and court procedure.    

Firstly, the ETA now states that any action that is legally required to be in writing can be executed in the form of information generated, sent, received, stored, or processed by electronic means, such as electronic data interchange, electronic mail, telegram, telex, or fax, assuming such information is accessible and usable for subsequent reference without its meaning being altered. This means that any legal requirement for something to be “in writing” can now be read as including electronic means.   

Secondly, and similarly, the changes introduce a new concept—the “automated electronic system for data exchange” (AESDE)—which is defined as a computer program, electronic method, or other automated method that is used to initiate an act, a response to electronic data, or any operation performed by the data system, either in part or in whole, without examination or intervention by a natural person. The ETA prohibits any person from denying the validity or enforceability of a contract entered into through an AESDE solely on the grounds that there was no natural person involved in each operation of the AESDE.

Preempting potential mistakes in AESDEs, the law also provides a section on human error. Where a person makes an input error that is then sent via another party’s AESDE, and that system does not provide a channel to correct the error, the person who made the input error, or an authorized representative, may revoke their intention (derived from the input error in question) if:

  • the person who made the error (or his or her representative) notifies the other party of the error as soon as it becomes known and indicates that such error was made via the AESDE; and
  • the person who made the error (or his or her representative) does not get any material benefit or value from the goods or services, if any, received from the other party.

Finally, courts or organizations under the Constitution of Thailand may now apply rules and procedures for electronic transactions in the public sector, as prescribed by royal decree, to court proceedings and other dispute resolution mechanisms.

In addition to these broad principles, the amendments bring practical changes to a number of more specific areas, including E-signatures, digital invitations to offer, and the governance structure for electronic transactions. These are summarized below.

Electronic Signature

The ETA revises the criteria for E-signatures, deeming them legally valid and enforceable if:

  1. the method used for the E-signature is capable of identifying the signatory and representing the signatory’s intentions regarding the information contained in the electronic data; and
  2. the method used is reliable and appropriate (in light of the surrounding circumstances or related agreements) for the purpose for which the data message was generated or sent; or the method is capable of verifying the signatory and representing the signatory’s intentions regarding the information contained in the electronic data—along with other evidence if the method itself does not sufficiently show this.

Invitation to Make an Offer

An electronic invitation to make an offer will be deemed valid if:

  1. it is made via electronic communication and sent to non-specific persons; and
  2. it is accessible for any other persons using the same data system.

This also includes an offer made through a data system that allows automatic responses. However, this does not cover a proposal that clearly indicates that the party making it intends to be bound by it in case of acceptance—for example, clickwrap (or clickthrough) agreements commonly used by software providers.

Governance of E-service Businesses

The Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) is in charge of service businesses relating to electronic transactions (E-service businesses), unless otherwise stipulated in law. In determining which E-service businesses are subject to notification, registration, and licensing requirements, the ETDA will consider the potential impact of the E-service business and the appropriateness of monitoring and undertaking damage prevention measures in accordance with the degree of severity of the impact. The provision in question here states that a royal decree is to be enacted to clarify these points further, but the decree has not yet been announced.   

Rules, procedures, and conditions for E-service businesses imposed by the ETDA will be prescribed by royal decree, and penalties for non-compliance with E-service business royal decrees are as follows:

  1. suspension of the business, or removal of its notification from the list, as the case may be, for failure to comply with a notification requirement;
  2. a fine of up to THB 1 million for failure to comply with a registration requirement; and
  3. a fine of up to THB 2 million for failure to comply with a licensing requirement.

If a party is fined under points 1, 2, or 3 above, and re-offends within a year, their registration or license may be revoked.

Criminal penalties for operating an E-service business without registration or license have been added in the ETA and include not only fines but also potential imprisonment. Failure to register is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of up to THB 200,000, or both, while failure to obtain a license is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to THB 300,000, or both.

Other Provisions

The ETA grants a number of duties and powers to the Electronic Transactions Commission (an agency of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society), including, among others, the power to:

  • approve strategic plans regarding electronic transactions;
  • promote and support any activities in accordance with the strategic plans;
  • determine technology standards in respect of electronic transactions;
  • supervise E-service businesses; and
  • request information or documents from any person in relation to operation of E-service businesses.

The ETA authorizes officials to enter into the premises of a business operator between sunrise and sunset, or during that business operating hours, to inspect and gather information and to seize and confiscate documents, evidence, or any other things that might be associated with offenses under the ETA or its subordinate legislation.   

The above changes to the ETA are expected to be welcomed by businesses, as the revisions update Thai law on electronic transactions to be in line with current widely accepted standards as expressed in the UN Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts. This should add flexibility for carrying out business transactions via electronic means and simplify the process of harmonizing practices regionally and globally. That said, with major benefits come potential risks, and it is crucial for E-service businesses to ensure that their operations are fully compliant with Thai laws and regulations before implementation.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
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
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