Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued orders announcing the premium rates for insureds who purchase insurance policies directly from life and non-life insurance companies. The orders, which were issued on September 2, 2024, allow insurance companies to set lower premium rates for insureds who purchase insurance policies directly from them, compared to those approved earlier by the OIC. Under the orders, both life and non-life insurance companies selling insurance policies directly to insureds may set the premium rate below the premium rate earlier approved by the OIC, but the discount may not exceed: 30% of the insurance premium for all types of insurance policies; and 35% of the insurance premium for insurance policies that utilize innovation or are sold through electronic channels. Here, “insurance policies that utilize innovation” means insurance policies that are currently being tested or have successfully met the objectives of the Insurance Regulatory Sandbox or the Product Innovation and Tailor-Made Sandbox, as approved by the OIC. The insurance companies may set the above two premium rates under the following conditions: The insurance contract must be entered into between September 1, 2024, and November 15, 2024; and The coverage start date of the insurance policy must not be later than December 31, 2024. For more details on the OIC’s orders regarding premium rates for insureds who purchase insurance policies directly from life and non-life insurance companies, or on any issue concerning insurance regulations in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Witchupong Chittchang at [email protected], Ajaree Trachukul at [email protected], or Sireethorn Wijan at [email protected].

As Thailand is a contracting state of the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, international arbitral awards can, in principle, be enforced in Thailand. However, not all awards will necessarily be enforceable. The Arbitration Act BE 2545 (2002) gives courts the discretion to deny the enforcement of an award if the court determines that enforcing it would be contrary to “public order or the good morals of the people” (often referred to as “public policy”). Similarly, the Arbitration Act allows a court to set aside a domestic award if its recognition would violate public policy. This discretionary power of the court is prescribed by the law and does not require any party to make an argument on public policy grounds to trigger such power. A recent Supreme Court judgment demonstrates that a court considering an award will review the legality of the arbitral proceedings as well as the content of the award. In this case, the Supreme Court set aside an award on the grounds that it violated public policy because it was the result of arbitration that did not proceed in accordance with the relevant law. Under Thai bankruptcy law, after the Bankruptcy Court accepts a request for rehabilitation of a debtor, all civil proceedings against that debtor, including arbitration proceedings, must be stayed until the court orders otherwise or until the rehabilitation case ceases. In this matter before the Supreme Court, however, the arbitrator continued with the arbitration and went on to render an award even after the court had accepted the request for rehabilitation. The award was later challenged to be set aside on the grounds that continuing with the arbitration was against public policy. While setting aside the award was arguably unnecessary, in this case (as the relevant bankruptcy law already provided

The first draft of Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (“Draft PDPL”) was released for public consultation on September 24, 2024, and is open for comments until November 24, 2024. (See further details here.) It is expected that the draft will be presented to the National Assembly before the end of 2024 and will be submitted for adoption in May 2025, with a tentative entry into force on January 1, 2026. As the Draft PDPL incorporates most of the provisions of Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (“PDPD”), which has been the primary legal instrument on personal data protection since it took effect on July 1, 2023, it is likely that it will supersede the PDPD when it takes effect. [Please contact our Vietnam data protection team to request a detailed comparison of the Draft PDPL to the PDPD.] Noting that there might be further changes to the draft once the public consultation period closes, the Draft PDPL proposes new specific requirements for a number of services. Some highlights of the current version include the following: Marketing services: Although marketing services are already regulated under the PDPD, the Draft PDPL now recognizes that the use of personal data for marketing must comply with anti-spam regulations. The current draft does not clarify whether organizations are exempted from the consent requirement for the purpose of the initial call or message under the anti-spam regime. Marketing service providers are not allowed to outsource the services to another organization to perform or support the implementation of marketing business, which may prevent the sharing of personal data. Behavioral advertising: Behavioral advertising (targeted personalized advertising based on a user’s activity or personal data) requires the consent of the data subject in a modifiable manner that allows the data subject to refuse to share data in different contexts.

The Indonesian food and drug authority, also known as “BPOM,” issued a draft regulation on September 9, 2024, proposing standard labeling disclosing the sugar, salt, and fat content of packaged food products sold in the country. The draft Regulation on Nutritional Value Information on Food Labels to implement Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 on the Implementation of the Health Law seeks to mandate “Nutri-Level” front-of-pack nutrition labeling to indicate the amount of sugar, salt, and fat at four possible levels, with a modified stoplight-color system: Level “A” (lowest amount) has a dark green background Level “B” has a light green background Level “C” has a yellow background Level “D” (highest amount) has a red background These levels are shown in the following sample image: The requirements for sugar, salt, and fat content for each level are based on amounts per 100 milliliters of ready-to-eat processed food as follows: Further requirements relating to nutrients reflected in the Nutri-Level labeling include: Foods labeled as level A are not allowed to contain natural or artificial sweetening food additives, either through direct addition or carried over from other ingredients. Foods labeled as level B may only contain natural sweetening food additives. Foods labeled as level C or D may use natural and artificial sweetening food additives. “Sugar” includes all monosaccharides and disaccharides, excluding lactose. Processed plain liquid milk and plain milk powder are exempt from the requirement to declare total fat content on the Nutri-Level label. Labeling Implementation The implementation of Nutri-Level labeling must comply with the following requirements: The Nutri-Level label must list all four letters (as shown in the examples below) unless the package meets the criteria for display of a simplified format label. The Nutri-Level of the processed food must be indicated by enlarging the relevant letter, as shown in the examples below. Processed foods at levels C and D must include a Nutri-Level label, while processed

Three of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Vietnam have contributed the Vietnam chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Vietnam chapter was authored by Truc Thi Thanh, Linh Ngoc Nguyen, and Kien Trung Trinh. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Thailand chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024.

Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Bangkok have contributed the Thailand chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Thailand chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Thailand chapter was authored by Eric M. Meyer, Chusert Supasitthumrong, Pathanin Sornchangwat, and Chayathorn Kruatao, all in the Thailand dispute resolution and litigation team. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024. The full Thailand chapter is available below as a PDF.

Background Since Thailand’s accession to the Madrid Protocol in November 2017, the trademark registration landscape in the country has undergone significant transformation. Brand owners can seek trademark protection in Thailand through a streamlined international process in addition to the national route. This alignment with global practices has somewhat simplified the registration process, offering businesses a valuable pathway to safeguard their brands in this key Southeast Asian market. However, despite the streamlined process, a technical glitch at the Trademark Office in Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property has caused delays in issuing local certificates and statements of grant following provisional refusals — commonly referred to as ‘Model Form 5’. These documents are crucial for finalising trademark registrations and confirming their validity within Thailand. It is important to note, however, that this technical issue did not affect the issuance of statements of grant for international registrations (IRs) that had not been provisionally refused. Recent developments The good news is that, as of 19 August 2024, the Trademark Office has successfully resolved the technical issues impacting the issuance of these essential documents. With the glitch now fixed, the office has begun to process the backlog of local certificates of registration and statements of grant for IRs designating Thailand following provisional refusals. What this means for brand owners The resolution of this technical issue represents a significant milestone for brand owners who have been waiting for their local certificates. As the Trademark Office works to clear the backlog, the issuance of certificates and statements of grant is likely to proceed more promptly. For those affected by the delay, the end is in sight. The issuance of these documents will enable brand owners to officially complete their trademark registration in Thailand and benefit from the protections offered under Thai law. In the meantime, brand owners needing a certificate of registration for specific

Indonesia enacted a new franchise regulation, Government Regulation No. 35 of 2024 on Franchising (“GR 35/2024”), on September 2, 2024. Franchising in Indonesia was previously governed by Government Regulation No. 42 of 2007 on Franchising (“GR 42/2007”), along with an implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 71 of 2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising (“MOT Regulation 71/2019”). This new regulation repeals GR 42/2007. However, MOT Regulation No. 71/2019 remains in effect until a new MOT regulation can be enacted. The new franchise regulation contains several amendments and provides more detailed requirements to complement MOT Regulation No. 71/2019. Comparison of GR 35/2024 to GR 42/2007 Minimum years of business operation. The new regulation reduces the minimum duration that a franchise registration applicant must have been operating from five years to three years. Intellectual property (IP) status. Any relevant IP must now be registered before a franchise registration application can be submitted. This is a change from the previous regulations, under which it was possible to obtain a franchise registration (STPW) while an IP application was still pending, and if the IP application could not be registered, the STPW would be canceled. Registration requirements for foreign franchisors. Under the new regulation, foreign franchisors must provide a legalized or apostilled business permit document from the country of origin in addition to the previously required franchise offering prospectus and statement letter from the relevant Indonesian authority. Administrative sanctions. The new regulation has adjusted the three escalating stages of administrative sanctions to (1) two warning letters, (2) a 14-day suspension from business activities, and (3) STPW revocation. This varies from the three stages under the previous regulation (three warning letters, fine, and STPW revocation). The new regulation also expands the list of noncompliant actions that are subject to these administrative sanctions. In addition to the regulatory obligations detailed in the previous regulation,