ThailandThe PDPA B.E. 2562 (2019) is the binding baseline. ETDA's AI Governance Practice Center publishes AI ethics and impact-assessment material, including an Ethical Impact Assessment playbook and an AI Job Redesign guideline. AI-specific PDPC guidance could not be verified because the regulator's site returned HTTP 403.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific
Thailand
Early: one or two positionscivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
Thailand has no located instrument on AI in legal practice as of September 2026: no Courts of Justice practice direction, no Lawyers Council guidance and no reported sanctions case. The only official AI material is horizontal, from the Electronic Transactions Development Agency's AI Governance Practice Center, alongside the PDPA 2019 baseline. Most categories are unresearched rather than negative.
As of 2026-09-04, Thailand has 0 binding rules, official guidance in 2 categories, 0 proposals and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. In 1 category we found nothing; in 17 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
No AI statute in force. ETDA issued Thailand's AI Governance Guideline for Executive (2023) and a 2023 study report on drafting AI legislation and assessing its impact. A draft Royal Decree on AI business operations is widely reported but could not be located on ETDA's own pages, so it is not recorded here as proposed.
No Thai decision involving AI-fabricated citations was found as of 4 September 2026. The Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database (2,009 decisions across 41 jurisdictions, updated 3 September 2026) contains no Thai entry.
Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice filing-disclosure rule was found on reachable pages; the Office of the Judiciary site could not be opened.
Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice or Lawyers Council instrument imposing a verification duty was located.
Not substantiated. No judicial AI-use guidance was found on reachable Courts of Justice pages; oja.coj.go.th and library.coj.go.th were unreachable.
Not substantiated. No Thai instrument barring AI from adjudicative reasoning was located.
Not substantiated. No Thai court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was located.
Not substantiated; no AI or deepfake evidence rule located.
The Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) applies to lawyers as data controllers, but no AI-specific guidance was opened: the PDPC site returned HTTP 403.
Not substantiated. No Thai competence rule or guidance naming AI was located.
Not substantiated. No Thai supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work was located.
Not substantiated. No Thai requirement to inform clients of AI use was located.
Not substantiated. No Thai rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work was located.
Not substantiated. No Thai determination on consumer AI legal products was located.
Leaning negative but not established. The Lawyers Council homepage was opened and carries no AI item in news, regulations or announcements; the Thai Bar Association site is a splash page. Neither is strong enough to record as an affirmative absence.
Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice AI system was documented on the pages that could be opened.
Leaning negative. A search of the Thailand Arbitration Center site returned no AI-related items, but its search does not reliably filter, so this is not evidence of absence.
Not substantiated. No mandatory AI training or continuing education requirement for Thai lawyers was located.
Not substantiated. No Thai legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance was located.
Official documents recorded for Thailand (0)
- No documents recorded yet; category sources link the official pages.
Court incidents on the record in Thailand
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Thailand" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/th (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.