From the journal

Thailand Releases Draft AI Act for Consultation; Strict Liability Provision Contested, August 2026

Thailand's Electronic Transactions Development Agency released a revised Draft AI Act for public consultation on 2 July 2026, with comments due by 14 August 2026. The draft adopts a four-tier risk classification modelled on the EU AI Act and introduces strict liability for AI-related damage, mandatory local representatives for foreign AI providers, and labelling obligations for generative AI content.

2 min read

On 2 July 2026, Thailand's Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a revised Draft AI Act for public consultation, with the consultation period closing on 14 August 2026. If enacted, the Draft AI Act would be Thailand's first statute imposing registration, conformity assessment, incident reporting, and liability obligations on developers, providers, deployers, and platform operators of artificial intelligence systems.

The draft establishes four risk tiers: prohibited AI systems, high-risk AI systems, AI systems requiring an operating licence, and AI systems subject to transparency obligations. Transparency obligations apply to systems generating deepfakes, operating as chatbots, or producing generative AI output. High-risk AI systems must undergo conformity assessment before deployment, register with the ETDA, implement post-market monitoring, and report incidents, mirroring obligations in Articles 9 to 17 of the EU AI Act. The draft departs materially from the EU AI Act on liability: it imposes strict liability for AI-related damage without requiring proof of fault on the part of the developer, provider, or deployer.

Foreign developers, providers, and deployers whose AI systems are used in Thailand fall within scope regardless of where their servers or registered offices are located. Those without a registered Thai presence must appoint a local representative to act as point of contact with the ETDA, a requirement analogous to Article 25 of the EU AI Act. Businesses affected include providers of AI-enabled financial services, insurance underwriting, medical diagnostics, vehicle control systems, critical infrastructure management, and consumer platforms directing services at Thai users.

The strict liability provision is the draft's most contested element. Industry groups have raised concerns during the consultation that unlimited strict liability will deter deployment of beneficial AI applications in Thailand, and the ETDA has indicated the provision may be revised before finalisation. The ETDA intends to complete the legislative process before the end of 2026, though parliamentary scheduling and committee review timelines remain unconfirmed. The draft may change materially following the consultation.

Licentium advises technology companies, financial institutions, and multinational businesses on AI regulatory compliance across EU, UK, and Southeast Asian jurisdictions. Work we undertake includes AI system risk-tier classification, high-risk AI compliance programme design, local representative appointment, cross-border AI deployment structuring, and multi-jurisdictional AI regulatory horizon scanning.

Source: Baker McKenzie, Thailand Draft AI Act: Seven Key Implications, July 2026 (reporting on ETDA Draft AI Act, 2 July 2026)

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).