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

August 22, 2012

Using the Computer Crimes Act to Combat Online Piracy

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The increase in online shopping has proven lucrative for legitimate retailers. But traders selling counterfeit and pirated products have also taken advantage by selling a wide range of counterfeit products online. In searching for new solutions to battle intellectual property infringement on the internet, recent meetings between government officials and members of the private sector have resulted in an innovative approach that relies on existing legislation. This article will provide an overview of the current regulatory environment and the recommended procedures that will facilitate the shutting down of illegal retail websites, and help to halt the rise in purchases of counterfeit goods on the internet.

Online Piracy Challenges

According to a report by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), 40 percent of pirated films, music DVDs, and CDs are offered for sale online. For counterfeiters, there are three key benefits in shifting from traditional brick-and-mortar marketplaces to online retailing:

  1. There is no stall rental fee.
  2. Many of the corrupt activities surrounding the sale of counterfeit goods can be avoided.
  3. Storage of goods is not required, which reduces the chances of being caught in possession of the illegal goods and subsequently arrested.

Since existing IP laws in Thailand do not explicitly sanction the sale of counterfeit goods online, IP owners have, up until now, been unable to take aggressive action against these online sellers. In practice, IP owners have tried to tackle this type of infringement in Thailand by conducting investigations to uncover the source of the fake goods, followed by raid actions at storage facilities, stockrooms, and warehouses.

This investigation-and-raid approach however, is increasingly becoming hampered by the fact that online traders do not typically store their goods on their premises. Instead, traders purchase the counterfeit products from other sellers in the market, after having received purchase orders from their customers.

Existing Legal Framework

In the absence of specific legislation to address these activities, the Thai government has tried to solve this problem by relying on related legislation. When advising IP owners of their enforcement options, one suggestion raised by the DIP is to apply Sections 14 and 20 of the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550 (2007).              

Section 14: Whoever commits the following offenses shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine of not exceeding THB 100,000, or both:

(1) Entering wholly or partially spurious computer data or false computer data into a computer system, in a manner that is likely to cause injury to other persons or the public. …

Section 20: In the case where the commission of an offense under this Act involves the distribution of computer data that may affect the security of the Kingdom, as prescribed in Book II, Title I or Title I/I of the Penal Code, which may be inconsistent with public order or good morals, the competent official may apply for a motion to the court to order that the distribution of such computer data be blocked.

In 2011, these sections were applied to a case related to food and medical products before Thailand’s Criminal Court. In Red Case Sor. 33/2554, the defendant committed an offense of advertising the sale of food, medicine, and medical equipment by using untrue information that was deceptive to consumers. The court deemed that this act constituted an offense under Section 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act. The court therefore issued an order to block the distribution activities undertaken by the website, pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.

As this judgment shows, Sections 14 and 20 grant to the court the authority to block the distribution of forged computer data or false computer data, upon the request of an officer, if the court finds that such contents may be inconsistent with public order or good morals. Unfortunately, the content of the Computer Crimes Act is not clear in defining whether offering counterfeit goods for sale on a website can be considered “forged computer data.” Although some government officials claim that this law sets out the right to take action against websites that offer fake goods for sale online, others opine that fake goods offered on a website cannot be deemed “forged computer data” under Section 14.

Proposed New Approach

In seeking a solution to this problem, representatives from the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), the DIP, and the private sector met on March 12 and March 20, 2012. During the meeting, the Director-General of the DIP stated that she encouraged IP representatives or IP owners to submit a formal letter to the MICT requesting to shut down these websites under Section 14. When an IP owner proceeds with such a formal letter, this would provide a type of test case to determine whether Section 14 of the Computer Crimes Act can feasibly be used to shut down websites that offer fake goods for sale.

In light of these developments, a new procedure was proposed during the meeting (see graphic below). If all parties implement this procedure, it could enable IP owners to shut down websites selling counterfeit or pirated goods in as little as two weeks. Clearly, this would be a major development for long-suffering IP owners who have battled online piracy for years.

Implementing the Procedure

Although the debate is ongoing, it is evident that the Thai government intends to implement more stringent measures in the near future to inhibit the stream of illicit gains enjoyed by illegal online retailing operations. When an IP owner decides to test the approach proposed by the DIP and a court order is requested, practitioners will eagerly await the outcome for any developments in this area of the law. If the Computer Crimes Act is deemed practicable, it would provide an efficient route for IP owners to shut these websites down, without incurring additional investigation costs.

However, if the court decides that the activities of illegal online retailers—specifically, offering counterfeit goods for sale on a website—do not constitute “forged computer data” under Section 14, it will then be necessary for all stakeholders to push ahead with further amendments to existing IP law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More