In March 2024, a Thai court of first instance handed down a decision in a personal data protection case against an insurance company in Thailand. The landmark ruling has important implications for the disclosure of special categories of personal data. The case concerned an individual, acting as the plaintiff, who filed a claim against an insurance company, as a data controller, and its representatives, for collecting, using, and disclosing the results of the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level test, along with a photo of the plaintiff taking the test, without explicit consent, resulting in his insurance claim being rejected. The company also disclosed the data to the insured party, who is the plaintiff’s family member, causing the plaintiff to suffer reputational damage, discrimination, humiliation, and ill treatment. Since results of a blood alcohol level test are considered a special category of personal data pursuant to section 26 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the plaintiff filed the claim with the criminal court, requesting that the criminal penalties under the PDPA and the Penal Code be imposed on the defendants, and that the defendants delete or destroy the plaintiff’s personal data. The insurance company argued that it had disclosed the test results and the photograph to the plaintiff’s family member—as the insured under the insurance agreement—for the purpose of informing the insured of the rejection of the insurance claim. Considering these facts and reasons, the criminal court ruled that the processing of this special category of personal data was necessary for the defense of the insurance company’s legal claims pursuant to section 26(4) of the PDPA, and therefore, explicit consent was not required. As a result, the criminal court dismissed the case. Key Takeaways While this case was dismissed, it indicates that explicit consent is not the

On June 4, Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued a new notification on e-commerce business registration pursuant to the Commercial Registration Act B.E. 2499 (1956) (CRA), replacing a similar notification from 2010. The new notification (officially titled “Notification Re: Business Regulations that Commercial Operators Must Register and Businesses that Are Not Subject to the Commercial Registration Act, B.E. 2549 B.E. 2567”) took effect on June 5, 2024. While the previous notification required all individuals and legal entities engaged in regulated activities, such as selling goods or services online, to register their businesses with the local district office, the new notification effectively lifts this requirement for certain legal entities. The new notification clearly states that the CRA does not apply to regulated activities conducted by: Private limited companies, registered ordinary partnerships, and limited partnerships (i.e., legal entities under the Civil and Commercial Code); and Public limited companies (i.e., legal entities under the Public Limited Companies Act). Now that the new notification is in effect, limited companies and other specified legal entities are no longer required to register their e-commerce activities and obtain an e-commerce certificate from the MOC. E-commerce certificates previously issued to these legal entities are also voided by the new notification. Nevertheless, the requirement to register for direct marketing and obtain a direct marketing certificate under the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act B.E. 2545 (2002) remains in effect for any online sales or e-marketplace platforms administered by legal entities. Given the recent proactive enforcement of penalties for noncompliance with direct marketing registration requirements, we strongly advise business operators to assess whether their operations fall within the scope of direct marketing regulations and require a direct marketing certificate. For more information on e-commerce and direct marketing registration in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon

“Forced labor” has many incarnations. Some forms are shocking, such as a case in 2021 where Vietnamese guest workers were brought to a Chinese-owned factory in Serbia that manufactured tires sold to European car companies. The guest workers allegedly had their passports taken away and were subjected to horrible living conditions, including a lack of food, forcing them to resort to hunting small animals in the nearby forest to survive. However, forced labor more often takes subtler forms, so that most people do not even recognize it as such. For example, a factory may receive an order with an extremely short production deadline, and the workers are instructed to work overtime hours. If the employees refuse to do so and stop working when their regular shift ends, they receive warning letters the next day. While less shocking than the situation of the guest workers forced to hunt squirrels to survive, it is also forced labor. ILO Convention No. 29 on Forced Labor defines forced labor as “all work or service…extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered…[them]self voluntarily.” The ILO names 11 indicators of forced labor: abuse of vulnerability, deception; restriction of movement, isolation, physical/sexual violence, intimidation and threats, retention of identity documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive working or living conditions, and excessive overtime. Excessive overtime in particular is common in the manufacturing sector in Southeast Asia, and debt bondage is also prevalent. Some companies demand employees provide a “training deposit” when they commence their employment, which they will have repaid provided they continue working for a minimum period. However, these common practices may soon be eradicated due to new supply chain due diligence legislation. Two such examples demonstrating this greater focus on forced labor within

Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”). Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). Non-Cash Payment Instruments The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified. E-Money Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money. Non-Cash Payment Services Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment