Thailand is taking steps to energize its startup scene by drafting the Startup Promotion Law. This draft law aims to remove obstacles, open new funding opportunities, and provide coordinated government support. The goal is to make it easier for Thailand-based startups to grow and compete on a global stage. Why Is This Law Needed? For many years, Thai startups have operated under traditional company law frameworks that were not designed with high-growth businesses or with fundraising opportunities in mind. Restrictions on issuing bonds, offering shares to outside investors, and repurchasing shares for employee incentive programs made it challenging for emerging companies to access capital and accelerate their growth. The draft Startup Promotion Act seeks to remove these obstacles and foster a more competitive, entrepreneur-friendly environment in Thailand. Who’s in Charge? Two main organizations will oversee the startup ecosystem: Startup Promotion Committee: This group, to be appointed by the National Science, Research, and Innovation Policy Council, will set national strategies, policies, and budget; design promotional campaign and incentives; and propose further legislative amendments to promote startups. National Innovation Agency (NIA): Under the draft act, the NIA will be the main contact for startups and will serve as the secretariat office of the Startup Promotion Committee, coordinating data, advising startups, maintaining the public registry, and providing funding and investment (grants, repayable grants, loans, and equity) under committee criteria and, where applicable, cabinet approval. What Startups Are Eligible for Benefits? To be officially recognized and access benefits, a company must: Be a private limited company less than 10 years old at the time of application. Existing companies that already exceed the 10-year threshold may still apply for startup statues within one year of the law’s enactment, as long as they otherwise still qualify for the new regime. Have average annual revenue not exceeding THB 300 million over the past three years (with

Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.

Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical terms, winning abroad does not eliminate

Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters in Multilaw’s Global Data Protection Guide, which collects expert advice from Multilaw member firms in 90 jurisdictions around the world (including a Laos chapter, which is also authored by Tilleke & Gibbins). The guide provides answers to key issues concerning the fast-developing data protection and privacy laws around the world, and helps data protection officers and in-house counsel understand how the regulatory regime for data protection can affect their organizations in various jurisdictions. Each section of the guide identifies the main laws that govern data protection in that jurisdiction, and gives a detailed overview of the legal principles in place as well as the enforcement authorities responsible for overseeing compliance. The guide also covers issues related to data subject rights, data protection officers, impact assessments, data breach notification requirements, and cross border data transfers. The use of personal data in marketing is also considered, with specific information on electronic marketing rules, cookies, and marketing to businesses and consumers. Multilaw, of which Tilleke & Gibbins is a longtime member, is a global network of carefully selected independent law firms able to provide expert legal advice in complex environments around the globe. The full guide is available for free on the Multilaw website.

On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a new Cybersecurity Law, which will take effect on July 1, 2026. The new Cybersecurity Law was developed based on the consolidation of the 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 Law on Network Information Security. While the final approved version of the new Cybersecurity Law has not yet been published, according to official reports, the following notable requirements are confirmed to be included: The new Cybersecurity Law dedicates a specific article to prohibited acts related to cybersecurity, under which it strictly prohibits posting or disseminating information online that propagandizes against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The law also prohibits, among other things, (i) the appropriation, trading, seizure, or intentional disclosure of information classified as state secrets, work secrets, business secrets, personal secrets, family secrets, and private life; (ii) intentionally eavesdropping, recording, or filming online conversations without authorization; and (iii) the use of artificial intelligence (AI) or new technologies to conduct prohibited acts. The Ministry of Public Security (MPS) has the authority to require enterprises providing telecommunications, internet, and online services, as well as system administrators, to remove information violating cybersecurity laws from systems under their management. The MPS is also assigned responsibility for ensuring information security in cyberspace and data security, establishing mechanisms for IP address identity management, verifying digital account registration information, and issuing warnings and sharing information on cybersecurity threats. Information systems are classified into five levels (similar to the 2015 Law on Network Information Security) based on the degree of harm to national security and social order if an incident occurs. The MPS is the lead agency assisting the government in state management of cybersecurity. The Ministry of National Defense is responsible for managing military information systems, and the Government Cipher Committee manages cryptographic and cipher information systems. Interestingly, while the last

On November 18, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance issued an announcement that revises and expands the scope of goods that may be imported duty-free for educational, research, and cultural purposes, streamlining the framework for institutions and organizations engaged in academic and scientific activities. The announcement, which took effect the following day, amends customs duty exemptions under section 12 of the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530 (1987). Expanded Institutional Coverage The announcement broadens the types of entities eligible to import duty-free goods. Under the revised framework, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI) now certifies imports for educational and research purposes by: Public and private educational institutions operating under the National Education Act; Government agencies with statutory mandates for education and research; and Associations and foundations whose objectives include educational research. This expansion recognizes a wider range of organizations engaged in knowledge-based activities and removes previous limitations that may have excluded certain nonprofit entities. To qualify for duty exemption, goods must be imported specifically for educational and research use, as certified by the MHESI. Additionally, equivalent goods must not already be available from domestic producers, although the certifying ministry may approve imports of domestically available items if it determines that foreign procurement is critically necessary. Categories of Duty-Free Goods The announcement specifies seven categories of goods eligible for duty exemption: Newspapers, printed materials, and documents Art objects and collectibles related to education, science, or culture Audiovisual equipment for educational, scientific, or cultural purposes Scientific materials, instruments, and equipment Goods for persons with disabilities Musical instruments, sports equipment, and skill-enhancement tools Art and architecture education equipment Qualification Procedures Before importing goods under this exemption, operators must secure certification from the MHESI. This certification process requires demonstrating that the goods will be used for educational or research purposes and, in most cases, confirming that equivalent products are unavailable domestically. Institutions should establish clear internal procedures for obtaining

As Thailand transitions into an aged society, retirement policy and workplace protections for older workers have come into sharper focus. With public sentiment increasingly open to working beyond the traditional retirement age, questions about employee rights and employer obligations are more relevant than ever. In October 2025, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul proposed increasing the statutory retirement age to 65 for government officers, citing Thailand’s aged-society status and the potential social and economic benefits of longer working lives. While academics and stakeholders have raised concerns about systemic impacts, public opinion remains divided, with many workers signaling a willingness to continue working beyond the current norm. Against this backdrop, it’s worth revisiting what the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA) requires in regard to retirement and severance pay. This article explains the current legal landscape under the LPA, with a focus on retirement and severance pay for employees over 60, recent judicial developments, and practical options for structuring postretirement engagements. Retirement as Termination Under the LPA Under the LPA, retirement—whether set by agreement between employer and employee or unilaterally stipulated by the employer—is deemed a termination of employment. As a result, employees who retire under such terms are entitled to severance pay. The law also adds a default rule: if there is no agreed or prescribed retirement age, or if the prescribed retirement age exceeds 60, an employee aged 60 or older may declare an intention to retire. The declaration takes effect 30 days after notice, and the employer must pay severance accordingly. In short, retirement triggered by agreement, the employer’s work rules, or an employee’s valid notice is treated as a termination, and statutory severance pay is owed. Hiring or Rehiring Employees Over 60 Practical issues arise when an employer’s work rules set a retirement age that does not exceed 60, yet the employer hires or rehires

One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations to buy back their own