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 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,
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
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
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