As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder feedback are being consolidated to prepare

Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has published two parallel sets of draft regulatory amendments for public hearing—one governing non-life insurance and the other governing life insurance. The proposed amendments would significantly revise the rules for issuing, offering, and selling insurance policies, as well as the conduct of agents, brokers, and banks. Stakeholders may submit comments until April 25, 2026. The key proposed changes are summarized below. Electronic Policy Delivery by Default Under both draft amendments, electronic delivery would become the default method for delivering insurance policies. A printed copy would be required only if the policyholder expressly opts out, and any such printed copy would be treated as a substitute for the electronic original. For life insurance, this requirement would also extend to coverage summaries and to exclusion documents. The OIC would also retain authority to approve alternative delivery methods for specific types of policies. Misuse of Licenses Both amendments would introduce an explicit prohibition against sales representatives using another person’s name or license, or allowing another person to use their name or license, in connection with the offering of insurance or in sales documentation and policies. Premium Collection Reforms Both amendments would introduce the premium collection reforms outlined below. Premium receipt accounts Insurers must ensure that sales representatives inform customers of the available payment channels, which are limited to channels that remit premiums into the insurer’s account. If a customer pays an insurance premium to an insurer’s employee, an insurance broker, or any other person, and the company acknowledges the payment by issuing an insurance policy or other documentary evidence of insurance coverage, the insurer would be deemed to have received the insurance premium. Written premium collection and refund guidelines Insurers would be required to prepare written internal guidelines covering premium collection and refund policies, risk management associated with premiums, premium receipt channels, and customer notification methods. Check

In March 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated two significant investigations under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 that directly affect Thailand. The first investigation examines overproduction in manufacturing sectors caused by government support or policies that distort normal market conditions across 16 economies, including Thailand. The second investigation, launched the following day, targets 60 economies, also including Thailand, for alleged failures to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Taken together, these investigations represent a significant escalation in US trade enforcement and create substantial risk for Thai exporters, manufacturers, and businesses with supply chain connections to the United States. The investigations are moving on an accelerated timeline, with the USTR indicating that potential trade measures, including tariffs, could be imposed as early as July 2026. This article provides an overview of the investigations, highlights their specific implications for Thailand, and outlines practical considerations for affected businesses. Section 301 as a Trade Enforcement Tool Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the USTR authority to investigate foreign acts, policies, or practices that are considered unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict US commerce. If the USTR concludes that such practices exist, the statute allows a wide range of remedial measures, including the imposition of tariffs, nontariff trade restrictions, and negotiated agreements with foreign governments. Unlike other trade authorities, Section 301 does not set limits on the level of tariffs or the duration of measures, giving the USTR considerable flexibility to address perceived trade imbalances or unfair practices. Historically, Section 301 investigations take up to a year to complete. In this instance, however, the USTR has indicated that the investigations will proceed on a much faster timetable, with an unofficial target of concluding by July 2026. The compressed schedule increases the

Real estate law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins provided the chapter on Vietnam for Practical Law’s Commercial Real Estate Global Guide 2026, a comparative jurisdictional guide in Q&A format giving a high-level overview of real estate investment structures, restrictions on foreign ownership, and other important issues of real estate law. The main topics include the following: Real estate investment Title to real estate Sale of real estate Real estate tax Real estate finance Real estate leases Planning and development controls To read the Vietnam chapter, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.

On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical to those of protected inventions. In addition to direct infringement, the draft decree also

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below. System Design System design translates objectives, risk controls, and usage principles into AI/ML

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale”—expressly including insurance—must appoint

On March 30, 2026, Thailand’s Customs Department announced a strategy to raise import duties on a broad range of consumer goods—including plastic items and electronics accessories—to their maximum statutory ceilings, which often sit at 30% or 40%. Many of these goods currently benefit from promotional or incentive rates as low as 5%. For importers, e-commerce platforms, and logistics providers, this development demands immediate attention. While these increases generally require cabinet approval, they do not require full parliamentary amendment of the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, as the Customs director-general and the finance minister hold delegated authority to adjust rates within existing statutory bounds. Businesses should not assume that the legislative process will provide significant lead time before higher rates take effect. Death of the De Minimis: Abolishing the THB 1,500 Loophole This “ceiling-rate” policy, which is designed to equalize the landed cost of foreign goods with the domestic production costs of Thai manufacturers, builds on a sweeping set of customs reforms that have already begun to reshape Thailand’s trade environment. The foundation of this new regime was laid on January 1, 2026, when Thailand formally abolished the longstanding THB 1,500 duty exemption for small imported parcels under Customs Notification No. 219/2568. Every imported item is now subject to VAT and applicable import duties for its declared value, regardless of parcel size or transaction amount. By narrowing the scope of exemptions previously granted to low-value goods under the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, the government has made clear that the era of tax-free cross-border micro-imports is over. Three-Phased Strategy and Legal Modernization The March 30 announcement is the second phase of a three-part regulatory roadmap: Immediate enforcement: The removal of the THB 1,500 loophole and the imposition of VAT on all parcels, effective January 1, 2026. Tariff realignment: The current push to raise duties on sensitive items to