Educational Information Only
The content on this page is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique. For matters involving investigation, arrest, litigation, or formal proceedings, consult a qualified legal professional.
Online Review Platform Liability — Intermediary Standards Under CCA Section 15
Business Complainant (Plaintiff) v User-Reviewer (First Defendant) & Platform Operator (Second Defendant)
Composite summary — not a single reported case. This entry distils a settled line of Thai Supreme Court (Dika / ฎีกา) authority for legal education. It is not a transcript of one reported judgment, and the heading is not a citable case number. Do not cite it as specific case law — consult a Thai-qualified lawyer for the authoritative Dika number and current application.
Facts
A business — typically a restaurant, hotel, clinic, or service provider — was the subject of negative reviews on platforms such as Google Maps, Wongnai, Agoda, Facebook Pages, or TripAdvisor. The business sued both the individual reviewer (for defamation under Penal Code Sections 326/328) and the platform operator (jointly under Section 15 of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007) as amended, alleging that the platform 'allowed' the unlawful content to remain after notice). The platforms relied on their post-notice removal policies and on the limited-intermediary defence under the 2017 amendment.
Legal Issue
When is a platform liable as a 'service provider' under Section 15 of the Computer Crime Act for user-posted content, and what removal procedure protects the platform from liability after notice.
Holding
The Supreme Court, applying the 2017 amendment, has held: (i) a platform is not automatically liable for user-generated content; (ii) liability under Section 15 attaches where the platform, having received compliant notice of unlawful content under the procedure prescribed by Ministerial Regulation, fails to remove the content within the prescribed window (commonly read as a reasonable period, in line with the regulation's three-day default for most categories); (iii) the notice must specify the URL, the unlawful character of the content, and supporting identification — vague or harassing notices do not trigger the obligation; (iv) the platform's own editorial selection (e.g. promotion of disputed content) may convert it from intermediary to publisher with broader liability; (v) the original reviewer remains separately liable under Sections 326/328 Penal Code, subject to the Section 329 public-benefit defence for genuine consumer commentary.
Reasoning
Section 15 (as amended) creates a notice-and-takedown regime modelled in part on international intermediary-liability standards. Strict liability for user content would be incompatible with operating a review platform; mere passive hosting is therefore not enough. Equally, ignoring compliant notice converts hosting into endorsement. The dichotomy preserves space for genuine consumer commentary while giving businesses a route to remove genuinely unlawful posts.
Significance
Shapes the operating model of every consumer-review platform serving Thailand, and the strategic options of every business considering reputation litigation. Of growing importance as AI-summarised reviews and platform recommendation algorithms blur the intermediary/publisher line.
Practical Takeaway
Reviewers: write honest, source-supported reviews and keep evidence of your experience (receipts, photos, correspondence). Platforms: maintain a documented notice-and-takedown workflow and act within the regulatory window. Businesses: send compliant notices with URLs and supporting reasons — vague or threatening notices do not trigger removal obligations and may themselves expose the sender to anti-SLAPP arguments.
Cited Statutes
- Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), Sections 3 (definitions), 14, 15 (as amended B.E. 2560 (2017))
- Ministerial Regulation on Notice-and-Takedown Procedure under Section 15
- Penal Code, Sections 326, 328, 329
This entry summarises a representative line of authority from the Thai Supreme Court (ฎีกา). It is intended for general legal education only and is not a substitute for advice from a Thai-qualified lawyer. Individual Dika case numbers are being verified against primary sources; until then these entries are presented as composite doctrinal summaries.
Professional Legal Assistance
When a matter involves investigation, arrest, detention, litigation, or regulatory action, professional legal representation becomes essential.
Anglo Siam Legal provides experienced legal services across Thailand for both Thai nationals and foreigners.
feedback.wasThisHelpful