OTT and the Definition of Television Broadcasting in Thailand - Formichella & Sritawat

Over-the-top (OTT) services like streaming platforms are now a vital part of Thailand’s digital landscape. They play a huge role in how people enjoy media, and they’re becoming a focal point for policymakers, courts, and regulators when it comes to broadcasting. A significant legal question is whether OTT services are considered part of ‘television broadcasting’ under existing laws, which would mean they fall under the oversight of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) (See https://fosrlaw.com/2021/thailands-telecommunications-business-act/).How this question is answered could affect not just the service providers but also the entire digital economy, shaping its future in important ways. For a deeper dive into Thailand’s media landscape in 2025, see our insights here https://fosrlaw.com/2025/thailand-media-law-2025/.

In June 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court instructed the Central Administrative Court to accept a consumer complaint against the NBTC. The complaint concerned advertising practices on an OTT service and argued that OTT platforms should be classified as television broadcasting. The Supreme Administrative Court did not decide on the case’s merits; its order was procedural, ensuring the case will move forward to judicial review. This development underscores that the definition of broadcasting is not an abstract issue but one now being tested in court.

This procedural step highlights the statutory definitions in Thai law. Broadcasting legislation describes television broadcasting in terms of services that transmit programs to the public via terrestrial, satellite, or cable systems. These provisions were created with traditional linear broadcasting in mind, where content is scheduled and delivered simultaneously. OTT services, on the other hand, deliver content over the internet, usually on an on-demand basis. This structural difference has caused uncertainty about whether existing definitions include OTT or if it remains outside the NBTC’s authority.

The variety of OTT platforms increases this complexity. Subscription-based services with curated programming may seem more like traditional broadcasting, while open platforms hosting user-generated content don’t fit neatly into the same model. How the law treats these different types of services is a policy issue that goes beyond technical drafting and touches on how media is regulated in the digital age.

Currently, there is no licensing framework for OTT services under NBTC regulations. The NBTC Act grants the regulator broad powers in broadcasting, but applying these to internet-delivered, on-demand services is not simple. Past efforts to regulate OTT have shown the limits of administrative action. Any lasting extension of jurisdiction will likely require parliamentary amendments to the relevant laws. Relying only on regulatory announcements would be difficult without clear statutory support.

Other jurisdictions offer helpful insights into the choices Thailand encounters. For instance, the European Union distinguishes between linear broadcasting and on-demand audiovisual services, imposing fewer rules on the latter, which can help inform our approach. Singapore, on the other hand, encourages accountability by requiring some large online platforms to appoint a local representative. These examples highlight the variety of oversight models available, each impacting industry and consumers in unique ways. Explore our TMT expertise for guidance on NBTC strategies here https://fosrlaw.com/practice-areas/telco-media-tech/.

If Parliament amends Thai law, several key questions must be considered. Should the definition of broadcasting be broadened to include on-demand services, or should a separate category be created for OTT? How can we distinguish between subscription models, curated channels, and user-generated content? Is it necessary for foreign providers to appoint a local representative or establish a legal entity in Thailand to ensure accountability? These complex policy issues lack straightforward answers, but they will influence how OTT services are incorporated into Thailand’s regulatory system.

The main issue remains whether OTT services qualify as television broadcasting under the law. The Supreme Administrative Court’s order has brought the matter to the judiciary, but it has not been decided yet. Currently, OTT services are not licensed as broadcasters, and expanding NBTC’s authority will require clear legal development. As Thailand’s digital economy grows, addressing these issues will be a key step in shaping the future of media regulation.

About the Authors

Authors

Naytiwut Jamallsawat

Naytiwut Jamallsawat is a partner at Formichella & Sritawat and heads the firm’s Corporate and Regulatory practice. He advises multinational and Thai clients on complex regulatory and transactional matters, with particular emphasis on telecommunications, satellite services, media, data privacy, cybersecurity, energy, and foreign investment. His work includes market-entry structuring, licensing and regulatory compliance, regulated transactions, and conventional and renewable energy projects.
Naytiwut is ranked Band 2 for TMT by Chambers Asia-Pacific and a Leading Partner for TMT by The Legal 500. He holds an LL.B. from Chulalongkorn University and LL.M. degrees from the University of Kent and the University of Dundee.
John Formichella

John Formichella is a founding partner of Formichella & Sritawat and leads the firm’s Technology, Media, and Telecommunications (TMT) group. He has more than 27 years of telecommunications and technology experience across Asia, including serving as Vice President and General Counsel of a NASDAQ-listed telecommunications company. His work focuses on international market-entry strategy, telecommunications infrastructure, spectrum policy, and cross-border TMT developments, working alongside the firm’s Thai-licensed lawyers on matters involving Thailand. Earlier in his career, he contributed to work concerning the telecommunications provisions of the proposed United States-Thailand Free Trade Agreement. He is admitted to practice law in Washington, D.C.
Onnicha Khongthon

Onnicha Khongthon is a senior associate at Formichella & Sritawat with more than seven years of experience across telecommunications, media, and technology, data privacy, cybersecurity, satellite and space law, and corporate and commercial matters. She advises Thai and international businesses on telecommunications licensing, commercial agreements, regulatory compliance, and market entry, including BOI promotion, Treaty of Amity structures, and foreign business approvals.
Onnicha has contributed to leading international publications on telecommunications, digital business, and technology transactions, as well as the World Bank Group’s Women, Business and the Law research. She holds an LL.B. from Chulalongkorn University.
Supitchaya Akeyati

Supitchaya Akeyati is an associate at Formichella & Sritawat whose practice focuses on data privacy, telecommunications, media, and technology, corporate and commercial law, regulatory licensing, and foreign investment. She works with Thai and international clients on PDPA compliance, cross-border data governance, corporate matters, and regulatory issues affecting digital businesses and communications providers.
Supitchaya has contributed to Thailand chapters published by Chambers and Partners and the International Comparative Legal Guides, covering technology transactions, digital business, data protection, and telecommunications and media regulation. She holds an LL.B. from the Faculty of Law at Prince of Songkla University.