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​ 

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
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
Read More
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
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More