Thailand drafted the Digital Platform Economy Act, a new law to govern the expanding number of digital platforms, aiming to maintain economic and social security.
The Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), the Council of State and the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) jointly drew up the draft, which is now in the public hearing phase, starting on Jan 15 and scheduled to end on Feb 16.
What is the law's main objective?
The new law is meant to support social and economic development, according to the draft, as well as increase public confidence in the electronic data system and prevent potential damage to the public.
The draft sets out duties for digital platforms according to their type and size to protect consumers, ensure fair competition and encourage their self regulation in accordance with the principles of good governance.
The law takes effect 180 days after publication in the Royal Gazette.
The Digital Economy and Society Ministry and Commerce Ministry are to enforce the law, with each given a specific scope of responsibility.
The draft requires the establishment of a digital platform economy committee to draw up policies to regulate and promote digital platforms.
The committee chairman is appointed by the cabinet and must have outstanding knowledge and experience with the digital economy.
What are the duties and responsibilities of a platform?
A digital intermediary service in the draft refers to computer, internet or telecom networks for data senders and recipients.
The intermediary service has four categories: mere conduit, caching, hosting and others.
A digital platform service refers to a digital intermediary service that provides a hosting service that leads to transactions among users.
The law requires digital platforms to appoint a person to coordinate with ETDA.
The main duties of platforms include informing users of their rights and duties in relation to the law and the risk of failing to adhere to the law.
Platforms also have to provide an electronic complaint channel that must respond within 24 hours and inform the person making the complaint of the investigation's results within 60 days.
Significant digital platform providers are defined as having one of several characteristics: annual revenue of more than 1 billion baht before the deduction of expenses; more than 6 million users per month; or providing services that may pose a potential risk to society and the economy.
Significant platform providers must provide a list of specific information to the digital platform economy committee, such as the value of transactions on their platforms. This rule also applies to overseas-based significant players that provide such services in Thailand.
What do lawyers think of the draft?
Pattaraphan Paiboon, a partner at Baker McKenzie Ltd's Intellectual Property and Technology Practice, said this latest draft of the Digital Platform Economy Act was inspired by the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), aiming to regulate digital intermediaries and platform services with a broader scope than existing laws.
Ms Pattaraphan said the draft law could impose more stringent obligations on service providers, focusing on both consumer protection and trade competition. Non-compliance could result in substantial fines calculated from the service provider's global revenue.
The law replaces the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Services Businesses (2022) and will serve as a general law for digital intermediary and platform services, she said.
ETDA will oversee consumer protection, while the TCCT will handle trade competition. Information disclosed under the law could be shared with other regulators.
Digital platform services, a type of hosting service that matches users for transactions or interactions, are the main focus of this act, said Ms Pattaraphan.
The law's definition is broader than the current royal decree of digital platform services, as it now includes services that merely allow interactions between users. In practice, that could mean any online services would be subject to this new law, she said.
Some examples of regulated services include intermediary services, cloud storage, web hosting, web boards, online office programmes, online games, indexing, selection and reference services, online marketplaces, social media services, social networks with chat functions, advertising services, advertising space and news services, payment services, escrow services, delivery services, operating systems and app stores.
The exemption for selling products and services that the platform owns or doing so within affiliates is removed from this draft law. Therefore, online platforms exempted from the existing royal decree are subject to the new law, said Ms Pattaraphan.
The draft law also includes a competition chapter regulating "gatekeepers" -- core platform service providers with significant impact. These gatekeepers must comply with prescribed obligations and any sub-regulations issued.
Non-compliance will result in fines based on average global revenue, with daily fines if non-compliance continues, she said.
Paiboon Amonpinyokeat, managing partner of P&P Law Firm and an expert in cyberlaw, said the draft law overlaps with the content of four existing laws: the Digital Platform Service Decree under ETDA; the Cybersecurity Act, which oversees critical information infrastructure; the Antitrust Act, overseen by the TCCT; and the Computer Crime Act, which addresses illegal content.
The draft law is inspired by the EU's DSA, which focuses on the registration of digital platforms, online content, antitrust issues and promoting healthy competition.
"Each EU member country implements the DSA using its own laws, with the act serving as a guiding principle. Thailand already has several laws covering each area, creating redundancy for authorities," said Mr Paiboon.
Are there any potential burdens in the draft law?
Suthikorn Kingkaew, project lead of Thammasat University's Research and Consultancy Institute, said the draft law imposes 14 obligations on gatekeepers, many of which are unclear or overly prescriptive.
"This raises concerns about unnecessary overreach, which could harm innovation and limit platform differentiation," said Mr Suthikorn.
He said the requirement for account interoperability and application interoperability may force platforms to open up proprietary systems, reducing their ability to innovate and differentiate.
The interoperability requirements should be limited to scenarios where clear evidence demonstrates anti-competitive harm, said Mr Suthikorn.
Overbroad mandates risk creating compliance burdens with minimal consumer benefit, he said.
Regulatory overlap and implementation clarity also need to be solved. The new provisions overlap with existing competition law and data protection regulations, creating potential conflict, said Mr Suthikorn.
