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

April 11, 2017

Thailand’s New Law for Combating Online IP Infringement

Subscribe to Updates
World Intellectual Property Report, Bloomberg BNA

More and more intellectual property infringement is shifting from physical locations to digital or online venues. Internet user can easily offer counterfeit products for sale through social media or social networks, or upload pirated movies on to websites. In most cases, it is challenging to trace back the infringement activity to catch the actual infringer behind a fake username.

The Thai government has taken notice and tried to address this problem by amending the Copyright Act in 2015. Furthermore, an amendment to the Computer Crime Act gives rights holders a new tool for combating online IP violations, and will be in force in May 2017.

While the two laws have the same goal, they are applied through different approaches. This article will provide an overview of the two different legal approaches in combating online IP infringement and compare them for the benefits of IP owners in choosing the most suitable option to combat online infringement.

Copyright Act

The amended Thai Copyright Act (No. 2), which came into force on August 4, 2015, provides copyright owners with a tool to tackle online infringement. Section 32/3 allows for preliminary injunctions that remove copyright-infringing works from the internet, while at the same time providing an exemption from liability for internet service providers (ISPs).

Under this section, the copyright owner must file a motion with the court requesting an injunction order against the infringing material. The motion must clearly state any information regarding the ISP, infringement claims, and details of the investigation process that will lead to the finding of the infringement and evidence thereof, including the potential damages and other relevant factors.

If all required information is provided and the court sees the necessity, the court may order the ISP to remove the copyright-infringing content. Afterwards, the copyright owner must initiate legal action against the actual infringer within a specified time period.

Obstacles

However, copyright owners have had some issues in getting injunctions under this section. In many of the unsuccessful cases, the court rejected the grant of injunctive relief because copyright owners had, in the court’s view, failed to provide sufficient information, such as details and evidence of the investigation process.

Even if the court grants an injunction order, there are still obstacles in the implementation process. Takedown orders targeting foreign ISPs with servers hosted outside of Thailand are often unenforceable since Section 32/3 does not explicitly provide for website blocking. As a result, some copyright owners have turned their focus to other enforcement options.

Computer Crime Act

Prior to the amendment of the Computer Crime Act (CCA), there was an idea to apply Sections 14(1) and 20 of the old Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007) to address IP infringement on the internet.

The old CCA provided a mechanism for a government officer to ask the court to block the distribution of forged computer data or false computer data, which were contrary to the public order or good morals. But this approach was not feasible in practice because it was hard to define the act of offering counterfeit goods for sale, or the sharing of pirated movies by internet users, as distributing “forged computer data” or “false computer data.” Thus, officials have been reluctant to take action against these types of IP infringement offenses on the Internet.

Section 20(3) of the Amended Computer Crime Act

Recently, the CCA was amended to solve several issues, including adding new enforcement measures to tackle online IP infringement.

The Computer Crime Act (No. 2) B.E. 2560 (2017), which takes effect on May 24, 2017, provides a permanent injunction to block websites that have online IP-infringing content or for removing such data. Section 20(3) states that where there is dissemination of computer data which is a criminal offense against intellectual property, an official may, with approval from the Minister of Digital Economy and Society, file a motion with evidence to the court requesting the cessation of dissemination or deletion of such computer data from the computer system.

Under the CCA the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), and its officials have primary authority related to these provisions.

Implementing the Procedure

In practice, it is usually the IP owner who finds the alleged infringement on a website. The IP owner may provide the URL of the website to an officer of the MDES assigned to investigate and collect evidence for further consideration by the Minister.

Once the Minister approves, the officer will then file a motion with the court requesting that the website be blocked or its content deleted. However, in an urgent case, the officer may file a motion with the court before obtaining approval from the Ministry. If this is the case, the officer must report the matter to the Minister as soon as possible after the motion has been filed.

Finally, if the court grants the request, the officer may either block the website or order the ISP to do so. The rules, timeline, and methods for enforcing the court order are regulated by the Minister’s Notification.

A diagram of the process for blocking computer data that infringes on IP rights under the amended CCA is shown below.

By using the latest amendment of the CCA, an IP owner will be entitled to block the dissemination of IP-infringing data on the internet.

Comparison Between Approaches

With the same aim of combatting online infringement, the two laws are applied through different approaches. If we compare Section 32/3 of the Copyright Act and Section 20(3) of the CCA, we see some differences with respect to the scope of infringement, type of order, available action, and responsible person.

When the case does not involve copyright infringement, the only applicable approach is Section 20(3) of the CCA. However, for a copyright infringement case, rights owners may choose between these two approaches based on their preferred outcome—that is, whether they wish to remove the content or block the website.

In addition, the burden of copyright owners to investigate and collect evidence under Section 32/3 of the Copyright Act is heavier than under the CCA. This is because under the CCA, government officials, or MDES officers, are responsible.

Moreover, the Copyright Act provides preliminary injunctive relief, which requires the copyright owner to initiate legal action after the material has been taken down, while the CCA provides a permanent injunctive relief that does not require further legal action. IP owners should keep these different factors in mind when deciding the appropriate approach to take against online infringement.

Looking Forward

In addition to the latest amendments to the Copyright Act, the amended CCA can be a very effective tool. Section 20(3) is a new approach for IP owners seeking to enforce their rights against IP infringement on websites. With respect to the law in other jurisdictions, it seems website blocking is a new development in combating online infringement. Like all new legal approaches, we hope that the CCA can be applied effectively and fairly, without affecting the pace of technological advancement in Thailand. It will not be until an appropriate test case is considered by the court that we can assess whether the CCA is as an effective tool. The question of how the CCA will be interpreted and applied in practice will depend on the resolve of IP owners, government officials, and the court.

Reproduced with permission from Copyright 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
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
Read More
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,
Read More
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
Read More