On June 30, 2023, Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) issued Circular No. 06/2003/TT-BTTTT to provide implementing guidelines for Decree 71 on editing, ratings, and warnings for video on demand (VOD) sports and entertainment content provided over radio and TV services. Circular 06 will take effect on August 15, 2023. Because Decree 71 allows VOD providers to self-edit and self-rate this type of content, it is important for them to know how the process is regulated in order to fully comply before providing VOD sports and entertainment programs to Vietnamese users. Under Circular 06, radio and TV service providers are required to display ratings and warnings on their programs, following the principles set out in the circular. These service providers must also compile dossiers in a stipulated form on the editing, ratings, and warnings of their programs for reporting to the authority and inspection. The main contents of Circular 06 are as follows. 1. Content Editing The main principles for editing VOD sports and entertainment programs include: Protection of children and other vulnerable people from inappropriate or potentially harmful content. Removal of all illegal/prohibited content, as well as content related to controversial issues or issues not recognized by Vietnamese law. Removal of content or dialogue that disparages the origins of others or makes fun of others’ physical weaknesses, and content that is contrary to Vietnamese culture, morality and fine customs and traditions; Removal of programs if it is discovered during the editing process that in the program or at the venue of the event, there are images or activities violating the prohibitions of the law, violating Vietnamese fine customs and traditions, or containing sensitive political elements. In addition to compliance with the above-mentioned principles, sports and entertainment programs related to health, education, and online gaming must additionally meet

Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.

Enacted in 2009, Indonesia’s current Law on Health (Law No. 36/2009) is due for a refresh. The government realized that the law has not maintained its relevance when it comes to health trends such as digital health, which refers to the provision of health services online (also commonly known as telemedicine). While regulations and policy blueprints, such as Ministry of Health (MOH) Regulation No. 46/2017 concerning National E-Health Strategies, have addressed these shifting trends, Indonesia’s main health legislation has proved inadequate in this regard. For this reason, the government began making plans for an update to the law, and the first draft Omnibus Health Law was published in March 2023. The law addresses digital health and other important issues in today’s health landscape, and it seeks to promote the use of locally made health supplies. The draft Omnibus Health Law represents a notable step forward, but in its attempt to govern and regulate all aspects of health, there are also some issues in the draft that may overlap with some existing government regulations, such as provisions on Halal certification, compulsory licensing of patents, and addictive substances. This article outlines some of the draft law’s key aspects as well as some potential issues. Digital Health In addressing the growing health trend of telemedicine, the draft law confirms, reinforces, and fills gaps left by Indonesia’s three main regulations concerning telemedicine. namely, MOHR No. 20/2019 concerning Telemedicine, MOHR No. 24/2022 concerning Medical Records, and Medical Council Regulation No. 74/2020 concerning Telemedicine (MCR No. 74/2020). One of these regulations, MOH Regulation No. 20/2019, allows health service facilities to provide telemedicine services to other health service facilities. This covers telemedicine services related to radiology, electrocardiography, ultrasonography, and telemedicine consultancy services—including those that reflect developments in science and technology. This is the only regulation concerning

One of the more positive outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic is that telemedicine has become remarkably important as an interactive system between patients and healthcare professionals. Thailand, which ranks near the top as a world medical hub, is a highly favored destination in Asia for expat workers. Currently, the Thai market has both Thai-based and foreign-based platforms with information about healthcare providers and telemedicine readily available. “Doctor Locator,” “Weed Map,” and “Find a Teeth Aligner Dentist” are examples of online platforms connecting patients with medical and telemedicine services. These digital platforms provide information about the location of specialized clinics, cannabis dispensaries, pharmacy stores, and orthodontic practitioners in Thailand. These platforms act as intermediaries between medical care businesses and consumers. As actual medical services are not offered or provided, these digital platforms do not have to be regulated under the Medical Facility Act of Thailand. However, healthcare digital platform services that act as an intermediary or conduit managing information used to connect medical clinics or cannabis dispensaries with patients or customers via a computer network are now regulated under the soon-to-be-implemented Royal Decree on Digital Platforms, regardless of whether payment is actually made via the platform. The regulatory authority for this is the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA). Under this royal decree, digital platform providers that intend to operate a digital platform service must notify the ETDA prior to initiating operations. The extent of the details to be included in the notification to the ETDA will be more comprehensive if the digital platform: has annual revenue (before expenses) for digital platform services within Thailand exceeding THB 1.8 million (approx. USD 51,200) for an individual operator or THB 50 million (approx. USD 1.42 million) for a corporate or entity operator; or has more than 5,000 users (on average) per month. Apart