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​ 

July 6, 2026
Vietnam has introduced an official list of high-risk AI systems, triggering more stringent compliance obligations for developers, suppliers, and deployers operating in the country. On June 30, 2026, the prime minister issued Decision No. 33/2026/QD-TTg (Decision 33), which establishes the List of High-Risk AI Systems under the Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law) and Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142). Decision 33 takes effect on August 15, 2026. Decision 33 is significant because only AI systems included on the list will be subject to the heightened compliance obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems under the AI Law and Decree 142. These include, among others, local presence requirements for foreign providers, mandatory conformity assessment before deployment, comprehensive risk management and data quality documentation, and strict liability for damages even when the provider is fully compliant. Decision 33 also specifies the applicable conformity assessment pathway for each listed system, indicating whether the system must undergo mandatory third-party conformity certification before being placed into use, or whether the provider may self-assess conformity or voluntarily engage a registered or recognized conformity assessment body. Which AI Systems Are Covered? Decision 33 identifies high-risk AI systems across six sectors—the key attributes of which are summarized below. Education: AI systems used for automated assessment, learner ranking, behavioral monitoring, or generating educational content from uncontrolled data sources. Ethnic affairs and religion: AI systems used to automatically score, classify, or rank applications for government ethnic policies; approve or reject regulatory applications; suspend benefits on suspicion of fraud; allocate budgets; or infer and classify individuals by ethnicity or religion for administrative purposes. Healthcare: AI-assisted surgical systems and autonomous AI-powered surgical robots. Banking: AI systems that autonomously conduct electronic banking transactions or make credit approval decisions. Judicial proceedings: Certain large-scale biometric identification systems used in public-interest civil proceedings. Transport: Thirty-one categories
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
July 6, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Data Protection & Privacy 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into data protection and privacy regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s data protection framework, addressing both regulatory structure and practical compliance considerations for businesses operating in or engaging with Vietnam. Topics covered include: Law and the regulatory authority: Legislative framework; data protection authority; cooperation with other data protection authorities; breaches of data protection law; judicial review of data protection authority orders Scope: Exempt sectors and institutions; interception of communications and surveillance laws; other laws; personal information formats; extraterritoriality; covered uses of personal information Legitimate processing of personal information: Lawful bases for processing; grounds for legitimate processing; types of personal information Data handling responsibilities of owners of personal information: Transparency; exemptions from transparency obligations; data accuracy; data minimization; data retention; purpose limitation; automated decision-making Security: Security obligations; notification of data breaches; internal controls Accountability: Data protection officer requirements; record-keeping; risk assessment; design of personal information processing systems Registration and notification: Registration requirements; other transparency duties Sharing and cross-border transfers of personal information: Sharing with processors and service providers; restrictions on third-party disclosures; cross-border transfers; further transfers; localization requirements Rights of individuals: Right of access; other statutory rights; compensation Enforcement: Enforcement mechanisms; exemptions, derogations, and restrictions; further exemptions and restrictions Specific data processing: Cookies and similar technologies; electronic communications marketing; targeted advertising; sensitive personal information; profiling; cloud services The chapter concludes with an update on key legal and regulatory developments over the past year and emerging trends in Vietnam’s data protection landscape. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Data
July 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible