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
Naytiwut Jamallsawat serves as a partner at Formichella & Sritawat, where he chairs the firm’s Corporate and Regulatory Practice. He possesses over ten years of experience providing counsel to international and regional media organizations, broadcasters, and digital service providers, with specialized expertise in issues pertinent to OTT operators. He consistently advises clients on NBTC licensing strategies, content compliance, and the regulatory interface between broadcasting law and emerging online platforms.
John Formichella is a founding partner of the law firm Formichella & Sritawat and serves as the head of the firm’s Technology, Media, and Telecommunications (TMT) practice. With over 27 years of professional experience, including tenure as general counsel for a telecommunications company listed on NASDAQ, Mr. Formichella has provided counsel on telecommunications projects throughout Southeast Asia. He is recognized for his expertise in assisting clients with major infrastructure initiatives, international market entry strategies, and spectrum and licensing matters in Thailand. Earlier in his career, he offered guidance on the telecommunications provisions of the proposed United States-Thailand Free Trade Agreement. He continues to be a trusted advisor to investors and operators in the telecommunications, media, and technology sectors seeking to enter or expand within Thailand’s regulated TMT industry.
Onnicha Khongthon is a Senior Associate at Formichella & Sritawat. She possesses extensive expertise in telecommunications and media regulation, advising prominent broadcasters, production companies, and OTT service providers on compliance with Thai broadcasting laws and NBTC procedures. Her responsibilities include managing licensing and regulatory approvals, and she has directed international clients through some of the most complex issues at the nexus of traditional broadcasting and emerging digital distribution models.
Supitchaya Akeyati is an Associate at Formichella & Sritawat. She specializes in data privacy, corporate law, and digital services regulation. She advises global and regional OTT and technology companies on compliance with Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act, cross-border data transfer rules, and regulatory expectations for digital platforms. Her work connects privacy law with the operational needs of media and online service providers.
The comments herein are for informational purposes only, are not guaranteed to be up to date, and do not constitute legal advice.
For further inquiries, please contact Formichella & Sritawat at [email protected].
© 2025 Formichella & Sritawat