Thailand's draft Electronic Transactions Bill: what it would change for e-signed contracts

The Electronic Transactions Bill B.E. .... is a private member's bill filed by Mr Supachai Jaisamut, a Member of the House of Representatives, and others. Its section 3 would repeal the Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001) together with all three amending Acts, and replace them with a single new statute.

What the documents themselves show is that the bill has been filed and that the House has opened it for public comment. We could not find an official source confirming whether it has been accepted in principle.

The Cabinet is also moving its own bill on the same subject, announced by a government spokesperson on 29 September 2026 (Government Public Relations Department, Thai). The announced content is very close to this bill, but the text that is finally enacted may be either bill or a merged version. Section numbers in this article come from the MP's bill and may not match the enacted Act. The bill exists in Thai only; English wording here is our summary, not an official translation.

The explanatory memorandum says the current Act no longer fits how the technology has developed, that the United Nations has since produced several new model laws, and that Thai law should align with international standards to make electronic transactions more trustworthy.

The bill's stated purpose (draft s. 4) is to make electronic transactions the default way of doing business rather than paper documents, while expressly not prohibiting paper. A contract signed on paper with a pen stays valid.

• Electronic signatures. A signature made by a reliable electronic method, or by a method prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), satisfies any legal signature requirement (draft s. 20). The definition expressly covers biometric data (draft s. 8).
• Electronic company seals. This is new: where a law requires a juristic person's seal, a reliable electronic seal counts (draft s. 21). The current Act has no specific provision.
• Who has to prove what. If data was produced by a reliable method, or by a method ETDA has prescribed, confirmed or certified, the party disputing its reliability bears the burden of proof and the cost of proving it (draft s. 12).
• Originals. A document created electronically by a reliable method is an original (draft s. 15); a complete and accurate scan of a paper original counts as an original (draft s. 16); and a traceable printout is admissible in court as if it were the original (draft s. 17).
• Stamp duty. An electronic instrument is treated as fully stamped if duty is paid electronically under rules issued by the Revenue Department (draft s. 22). The current Act already has a similar rule (s. 8, second paragraph).
• Registered post. Where a law requires registered post, a reliable electronic method that records time, sender, recipient and changes satisfies it (draft s. 19).
• When an email is received. If the recipient has designated an address, receipt occurs when the message can be retrieved there, presumed to be when it reaches that address (draft s. 36). The parties can agree otherwise.
• Input errors in automated systems. An individual who makes an input error in another party's automated system that offers no way to correct it may withdraw the erroneous part, if they notify promptly and have not yet used the goods or services (draft s. 42). This right cannot be contracted out of (draft s. 43).
• Exclusions. A Royal Decree may exclude matters that must be done in person before an official, such as registrations at a land office (draft s. 5).

Topic	In force today (B.E. 2544)	Draft bill
Title	Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544	Electronic Transactions Act B.E. .... (new Act)
E-signatures	s. 9, plus the reliability criteria in s. 26	draft s. 20; standards set, confirmed or certified by ETDA (draft s. 26)
Company seal	no specific provision	draft s. 21
Burden of proof	presumption for secure methods prescribed by Royal Decree (s. 25)	the challenger must prove and pay (draft s. 12)
Electronic stamp duty	s. 8, second paragraph (rules of the relevant state agency)	draft s. 22 (Revenue Department rules)
Time of receipt	when data enters the recipient's system (s. 23)	when retrievable at the designated address (draft s. 36)
Place of sending and receipt	place of business (s. 24)	domicile (draft s. 37)
Commencement after publication	120 days	180 days

1. Do not re-sign existing contracts. A contract validly signed electronically under the current Act remains valid; the bill changes the rules going forward.
2. Use a signing method with an audit trail. Both the current Act and the bill favour reliable methods. If the bill passes, using an ETDA-certified provider would shift the burden of proof to whoever challenges the signature.
3. Keep the signed file and the signing evidence (completion certificate, confirmation emails) where you can retrieve them later.
4. Name a notice email address for each party in the contract. Both regimes measure receipt against a designated address.
5. Transactions that must be registered with an official (land sales, mortgages) still need to follow the prescribed form. An e-signature does not replace registration.

The counterparts and electronic signature clauses in our English and Thai templates work under both the current Act and the draft. We have not changed any contract wording on the strength of the draft, because it is not law and may still be amended. Once an Act is published, we will check it against the Royal Gazette and update the statute name, section references and stamp duty guidance in the affected templates.

Summarised from the text of the draft bill filed with the House of Representatives and the House's public-consultation document. Site owner: ภูวรา ครอบตะคุ, attorney-at-law. This is a summary of a draft, not legal advice, and has not been reviewed against an enacted text because none exists yet. Article registry OKC-D8F04A.