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 at least 90 days from the date on which the advertising service is terminated. If a person other than the advertiser pays the advertising fee, the platform must also collect information about that payer.

Key Takeaways for IP Rights Holders

Of key interest to owners of IP rights, the notification creates a practical new evidentiary pathway for cases involving paid infringing advertisements in Thailand. This evidentiary framework is particularly valuable for rights holders who may wish to pursue civil litigation or criminal prosecution against infringers, as verified advertiser information can help establish the identity of defendants and support claims for damages.

IP rights holders should preserve screenshots, URLs, advertisement identifiers, platform information, payment indicators, and timing evidence to support enforcement requests tied to the platform’s advertiser-verification and recordkeeping obligations.

For example, a rights holder of sports or entertainment broadcasting events that discovers paid social media advertisements promoting unauthorized live streaming of its events can explore this new evidentiary pathway to take down the infringing content and pursue subsequent legal action. Additionally, using the advertiser-identification information retained by the platform, the rights holder can identify the individuals behind the infringement and pursue civil litigation for damages, including lost licensing revenue. Similarly, a licensed broadcaster facing piracy, or a brand owner combating counterfeit merchandise advertisements, can leverage the same framework for pursuing legal remedies against the infringers directly.

In such scenarios, the 90-day minimum retention period makes timing especially important. IP owners who encounter paid advertisements for counterfeit or infringing goods should consider rapid evidence preservation and prompt engagement with enforcement authorities before relevant advertiser and payer information becomes harder to obtain.

Overall, the notification provides IP rights holders with a potentially valuable tool against infringers who use paid social media advertising to reach Thai consumers. For IP litigation and enforcement practitioners, the key will be to identify when infringing activity is linked to paid advertising and to act quickly enough to make use of the advertiser and payer information that platforms are required to collect and retain.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.