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 requests by allowing inspection, providing document copies, or

On July 11, 2026, media reports conveyed key messages from Bank of Thailand (BOT) Governor Vitai Ratanakorn’s announcement of a sweeping regulatory crackdown on grey capital activities. The measures target high-value cash transactions, gold trading, and stablecoin flows, with new requirements set to take effect in the fourth quarter of 2026. The initiative aims to prevent financial institutions from facilitating shadow economy activity, money laundering—particularly through stablecoins—and capital flight, through enhanced compliance obligations on commercial banks across multiple transaction channels. Expanded Cash Controls Close the Deposit–Withdrawal Circuit New fourth-quarter guidelines will require individuals depositing THB 5 million or more in cash to formally verify the source of their funds. This builds on restrictions introduced in April 2026, which required anyone withdrawing 5 million baht or more in cash to provide their bank with verified commercial justification for why electronic transfers or checks could not be used. That initial measure caused high-value physical cash withdrawals to drop by 35 percent nationwide. The upcoming deposit-side requirement closes the circuit on large cash movements. The BOT is also assessing tracking mechanisms for high-value banknote swaps, specifically targeting individuals seeking to exchange large volumes of THB 1,000 notes into smaller THB 100 or THB 500 denominations without clear business justification. Governor Vitai emphasized that these measures require continuous deployment of multiple parallel strategies rather than short-term fixes. Tightened Bullion Reporting Frameworks Restrict Money Laundering Channels The BOT has also tightened reporting frameworks for gold trading to close money laundering loopholes and shield the Thai baht from speculative bullion volatility. Regulators identified a recurring pattern in which buyers purchased large quantities of gold through digital applications in the morning and then made same-day physical withdrawals from retail gold shops in the afternoon. Gold shops are reminded of their duties to flag and report cash and suspicious transactions directly to

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 additional safeguards and impact assessments depending on the level of

On July 8, 2026, Thailand enacted a new law significantly expanding the framework for government service delivery and licensing facilitation. The Facilitation of Licensing and Public Services Consideration Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (Facilitation Act 2026) replaces and expands the framework of governmental services under the Facilitation of Official Licensing Consideration Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Facilitation Act 2015) and broadens its scope to cover public services, administrative processes, and public benefits. The Facilitation Act 2026 aims to modernize government services by promoting e-filing, reducing administrative burdens and repeated document requests, and improving predictability. For businesses, this should ease compliance and shorten approval timelines, subject to implementing regulations and agency readiness. Public Services Facilitation Scope The Facilitation Act 2015 applied mainly to permissions, registrations, and notifications required before conducting activities that require licenses, certificates, permits, approvals, or registrations. The Facilitation Act 2026 broadens this framework to include public services and other benefits, such as welfare, subsidies, and grants, provided to Thai citizens, expanding government agencies’ responsibilities beyond licensing facilitation into a wider administrative-service framework. It also introduces a broader definition of “government agency” to include central, regional, and local government bodies, state enterprises, public organizations, and other state entities. Licensing Changes The Facilitation Act 2026 introduces a “super license” (termed a “main license” under the act) that exempts the holder from obtaining multiple related or ancillary licenses issued by different government agencies. Obtaining a super license deems the licensee to have automatically obtained the related “sublicenses” required to conduct the relevant activities. The cabinet will designate eligible activities by royal decree. The act also introduces an expedited licensing option, allowing applicants to pay an additional fee to fast-track their applications in urgent cases. Expedited processing must not interfere with standard application timelines. The criteria, procedures, conditions, and fees for expedited licensing will be set by ministerial regulation. Digital Government

Ambush marketing refers to a strategy in which a business associates itself with an event, campaign, or brand without paying for official sponsorship rights. The tactic is most visible in sports, concerts, and festivals, where official sponsors have invested substantially for exclusivity. Ambush marketers may use suggestive wording, event-themed imagery, athlete endorsements, venue-adjacent promotions, or social media campaigns implying a commercial connection with the event. Common Forms of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing typically takes one of the following forms: Direct ambushing: using event names, logos, or mascots suggesting authorization Coattail ambushing: sponsoring an athlete or broadcaster connected with the event Subtle ambushing: themed advertising, venue-adjacent campaigns, or similar visual cues The legal analysis in each case turns on whether the marketing crosses from permissible event-based advertising into infringement, passing off, deception, or wrongful exploitation of goodwill, and the risk assessment is necessarily fact-specific. Thailand has no dedicated ambush marketing statute, so legality depends on execution. A campaign that merely comments on a public event may be permissible, but one that uses protected marks, creates consumer confusion, misrepresents sponsorship status, or makes unsubstantiated claims may trigger liability under various Thai laws, as laid out below. Ambush Marketing and Thailand’s Trademark Act The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) is the primary tool for addressing campaigns that use registered trademarks, event names, logos, mascots, or confusingly similar signs. The law gives registered trademark owners the exclusive right to use their mark for registered goods, and infringement risk arises when a nonsponsor uses an event mark or a confusingly similar sign in advertising. Even referential or playful use may create liability if it causes public confusion as to sponsorship or commercial connection. The law also preserves passing-off claims for unregistered marks. This matters because event names, taglines, or mascots may not always be registered in Thailand or may not be registered in all

Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Investigations in Southeast Asia, a comprehensive guide published by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The resource provides a practical overview of anticorruption laws, corporate investigations, and compliance frameworks across six key Southeast Asian jurisdictions. Designed for in-house counsel, compliance officers, and risk management professionals, the guide offers actionable insights for navigating complex cross-border regulatory challenges and establishing effective, regionally coordinated compliance and investigation strategies. The guide begins with a regional perspective on enforcement trends and cross-border cooperation initiatives. Jurisdiction-specific chapters follow a standardized structure—covering primary corruption offenses, enforcement authorities, corporate liability, investigation procedures and dawn raids, whistleblower protections, and recommended compliance measures. In addition to country-by-country analysis, the publication highlights best practices for conducting internal investigations, managing digital evidence, and handling parallel proceedings involving multiple regional or international regulators. The guide serves as a practical reference for organizations operating in Southeast Asia. Because legal and regulatory risks depend on specific industry sectors and operational contexts, readers seeking tailored advice are encouraged to contact the authors listed in each chapter. The full guide is available for download through the button below or directly from the DNA website.

Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published guidelines establishing a risk-based framework for the responsible use of artificial intelligence by telecom licensees. Released on July 2, 2026, the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Telecommunications Services address governance structures, ethical principles, lifecycle management, and consumer protection obligations. Scope and Legal Context The nonbinding guidelines apply to holders of telecom business licenses under Thailand’s telecom licensing laws, but only with respect to the use of AI in providing licensed telecom services. Entities without such licenses are not directly subject to the guidelines, though they may be affected as third-party AI solution providers to licensees. The guidelines supplement and should be read alongside existing laws, including the Cybersecurity Act, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), the Computer Crime Act, and the NBTC Notification regarding Measures to Protect Telecommunications Service Users’ Rights Regarding Personal Data, Privacy Rights, and Freedom of Telecommunications, as well as forthcoming AI governance legislation being drafted by the ETDA. AI Governance Structure Licensees are expected to establish committees, working groups, or designated officers at both policy and operational levels to set strategic direction for AI use, formulate governance policies and tools, and oversee risk management. Roles, responsibilities, and accountability should be clearly defined for all personnel across every stage of the AI lifecycle—including for third-party AI solution providers and outsourced service providers, whose obligations should be explicitly documented in service agreements. Core Principles The guidelines identify six core principles that licensees should adhere to when deploying AI: Compliance with laws, ethics, and international standards: AI should respect privacy, dignity, and human rights, and content filtering for inputs and outputs should be considered. For example, the AI should not be designed and developed to be used in generating false information, supporting illegal activities, or causing damage to people. Fairness: Training data should be diverse,

When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same authority. Extension of MSA’s Enforcement Jurisdiction to