Thailand | Publication | July 2023
Attitudes and opinions towards artificial intelligence are diverse, as it remains a subject of controversy. Some view AI as a valuable tool that can assist in solving complex problems and matters through innovative algorithms, while others express concerns about the potential risks it may pose to society and humanity. Nevertheless, one certainty is that the coming of AI has led to legal challenges in numerous areas, such as intellectual property, privacy, and information technology. In response to these challenges, a global movement has emerged with the aim of regulating AI. The global trend is to govern the development and use of AI systems by establishing obligations according to the level of risk from AI as well as establishing an AI risk framework and AI ethical principles.
In Thailand, AI is a key focus in the Thailand's national strategy. The Thai Cabinet approved a draft Thailand National AI Strategy and Action Plan (2022–2027) on July 26, 2022, with the objective of establishing an ecosystem to promote the development and application of AI technology by 2027. While this demonstrates a concrete plan from Thailand to promote and regulate AI businesses, the direction of specific AI regulations in Thailand remains unclear.
As things currently stand, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) launched a public hearing regarding the draft of AI Promotion Act (AI Promotion Law) early this year. This AI Promotion Law covers the following aspects: AI Sandbox, Data Sharing, AI Standard, Contract Standard, and Risk Assessment. In parallel, the Office of the National Digital Economy and Society Commission also published the draft Royal Decree on Artificial Intelligence System Service Business (AI Business Law) aiming to regulate operating AI system business. This AI Business Law covers the following aspects of AI system business: Classification, Market Entry and Registration, Transparency, Monitoring and Assessment of Compliance.
The enforcement timeline of the AI Promotion Law and AI Business Law is uncertain.
The objective of the AI Promotion Law is to promote the development and use of AI through targeting AI operators (AI Operators). A key component of this law is the establishment of an AI sandbox, allowing for the waiver of certain laws and regulations for AI testing when deemed necessary by the ETDA. Additionally, the law emphasizes the importance of data sharing by facilitating guidelines and methods for the exchange or sale of data, ensuring fair contracts between AI Operators and users and establishing the method for conducting risk assessments of AI systems.
The objective of the AI Business Law is to regulate the operation of AI and prevent any damage to the public that may result from these AI operations. A key component of this law is the classification of AI system business, which designate certain types of AI businesses as high-risk AI businesses or prohibited AI businesses. Additionally, the law requires certain type of AI service providers to register their businesses with the regulator (including foreign operators – meaning the law has extra-territorial application). It also emphasizes the importance of transparency in cases where AI systems have the objective of interacting with humans by informing individuals that they are currently engaging in interactions with an AI system.
The implementation of the AI Promotion Law would provide support and encouragement to technology developers in Thailand for the development and advancement of AI technology through the AI sandbox and remove legal barriers that may hinder development. Moreover, the promotion of the exchange or sale of data for training AI systems may increase competition within the AI market. On the other hand, the implementation of AI Business Law would mitigate the harm from AI system and ensure the transparency of AI system.
If both of the draft laws are enforced consistently, it should ensure the provision of secure, fair and standardized AI services in Thailand.
Publication
The Court of Appeal has overturned a 2023 High Court decision in Manolete v White [2024], ruling that courts cannot issue injunctions requiring members to draw down their occupational pensions to make them available to judgment creditors.
Publication
The Chancellor presented her maiden Budget on October 30, 2024.
Publication
On October 29, 2024, the PPF published a response to its March 2024 consultation, confirming that it would proceed with its proposal to give actuaries the option of using a bespoke discount rate assumption in s. 143 valuations of smaller pension schemes.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023
