Formichella & Sritawat - Gambling Advertising in Thailand

Industry Focus

06 Nov 2026

Source: Gambling Advertising in Thailand

Advertising, sponsorship, and affiliate arrangements for media and sports businesses

By M.L. Numlapyos Sritawat and Naytiwut Jamallsawat

2 November 2026

A Thai sports site is offered a monthly fee to run a bookmaker comparison table beside its match reports. The publisher takes no bets and handles no player money. Yet the comparison and the account-opening links can expose it to criminal liability, and the agreement may leave it unable to collect its fee.

The label on the deal tells us little. Neither does the operator’s overseas license. When a media or sports client brings us a proposed betting sponsorship, we start with the material to be published and the route from that material to the betting service. For publishers, agencies, sports organizations, and creators, the first decision is whether the proposed promotion can lawfully proceed.

Advertising exposure extends beyond the betting operator

Section 12 of the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935) reaches people who help advertise or invite others, directly or indirectly, to participate in gambling conducted without the required authorization or outside its terms. Section 12 can apply to the publisher that only takes a fee.

For online betting, the licensing problem comes first. In memorandum No. 559/2568, the Council of State concluded that the Act’s licensing framework concerns physical gambling premises. The Minister cannot extend that framework to online gambling by ministerial regulation. Online betting therefore has no authorization route under the Act. Promoting an online bookmaker to a Thai audience means promoting gambling that cannot be authorized under that framework.

Section 12 sets three penalty tiers for organizing or advertising. Schedule A, items 1–16, Schedule B, item 16 specifically concerning unauthorized numbers lotteries (slak kin ruap), and games of a similar character carry imprisonment from three months to three years and a fine from THB 500 to THB 5,000. Other games under the Act carry imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to THB 2,000, or both. Offenses under Section 4 bis carry imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to THB 1,000, or both.

Section 4 bis expressly includes predictions within its scope. For football-result betting classified under that provision, the one-year/THB 1,000 tier applies. Casino games differ: a roulette-type wheel game classified under Schedule A, item 15, attracts the higher tier; baccarat classified under item 27 attracts the residual two-year/THB 2,000 tier. Classify an online casino’s actual games rather than applying one penalty to the platform’s label.

The fines are modest; blocking, lost revenue, and unenforceable fees can cost a media business far more.

Distinguish reporting from promotion. A discussion of gambling policy and a paid invitation to open a betting account serve different purposes. Review the actual placement, its destination, and its invitation to the reader.

Affiliate review must cover the content and the referral

An affiliate arrangement pays an intermediary for referring business. Whether the fee is per registration, per deposit, or a flat sum, the legal question is the same: what the reader is being sent to do.

A sports article may sit beside a bookmaker comparison, a promotional offer, and a button leading to an account-opening page. Review that sequence as a whole. The editorial article and the paid referral each require attention. Switching to a fixed fee changes the economics, not the content.
We ask for the actual pages and links alongside the agreement. A description such as “sports content” can conceal the invitation accompanying it. Establish who can insert links, replace advertisements, or change the destination after publication. Give the publisher approval over each replacement and the power to stop distribution.

A creator who shares a betting link may be advertising or inviting participation under Section 12 of the Gambling Act, whatever the payment arrangement. Government warnings to creators also cite the Computer-Related Crime Act. Our reading of Section 14 distinguishes its additional elements: Section 14(1) requires dishonest or deceptive input of distorted, forged, or false data likely to harm the public, and Section 14(5) requires knowing dissemination of data within Section 14(1)–(4). Promotions using invented winnings, false promises of guaranteed returns, or false claims of Thai authorization can supply the false-data element. The prosecution has to prove the relevant dishonesty, deception, or knowledge. An accurate link without false claims still leaves the creator exposed under the Gambling Act.

Sponsorship must be assessed as the audience experiences it
Consider a tournament sponsor asking for its bookmaker logo on team jerseys, the interview backdrop, and the broadcast score graphic. Each placement brings the brand to the audience. Nobody on screen has to say “bet now.” The logo can do the work.

The Office of Justice Affairs’ public guidance identifies clothing bearing gambling-site logos and social-media posts carrying gambling links as conduct that can engage the advertising prohibition. This is administrative guidance, rather than a judgment on every sponsorship, but it gives organizers a clear reason to examine branding before accepting it.

For television and radio licensees, the Broadcasting Business Act B.E. 2551 (2008) adds a separate layer. Section 37 prohibits content affecting public order or good morals and requires licensees to check and suspend offending programs. A designated commissioner can order immediate suspension; an investigation establishing the licensee’s neglect can lead to corrective orders, license suspension, or revocation. Assess betting branding against those duties and the station’s license conditions alongside the Gambling Act.

In the distinct setting of government lottery resale, the NBTC’s meeting No. 5/2566 record shows scrutiny of QR codes, program logos, and interviews, followed by directions to licensees to check, correct, or suspend relevant content. Our overview of Thailand’s broadcasting and media framework explains the wider licensing context.

For an event, we examine the material supplied by teams and commercial partners alongside the organizer’s own production. Settle permitted content, submission deadlines, and withdrawal procedures before selling sponsorship rights. Give the production team instructions and authority to apply them. Good approval rights help a lawful campaign stay lawful. They will not rescue an unlawful one.

Our companion article, Video Game Law in Thailand, addresses game publishing and esports more broadly. Sponsorship adds a question about what the audience is being encouraged to do.
A foreign license describes permission in the issuing jurisdiction. It does not supply Thai authorization

An overseas campaign still needs a Thai territorial analysis
A Cyprus contract and a Malta server do not keep the campaign out of Thailand. Section 5 of the Criminal Code treats an offense as committed here where any part occurs in Thailand, or where the consequence occurs in Thailand and the actor intended it to, or the nature of the conduct means it should have occurred here or could have been foreseen to occur here.

Section 6 adds the participants abroad. Where an offense is committed or treated as committed in Thailand, a co-principal, supporter, or instigator acting abroad is deemed to have acted here. Overseas agencies and affiliate networks therefore face exposure through their participation in the Thai offense. Under Section 86, intentionally assisting or facilitating an offense before or during its commission can attract supporter liability, generally carrying two-thirds of the principal’s prescribed punishment.

Suppose an overseas agency commissions Thai-language betting promotions and arranges their delivery through a Thai sports site. The agency’s location and foreign contracting entity are only part of the evidence. The brief, distribution instructions, local publication, and intended consequences help establish the territorial connection and each participant’s role. Technical accessibility from Thailand alone is a different factual starting point from deliberate delivery to a Thai audience.

We compare the campaign brief and actual distribution with the territory promised in the agreement. Record who controls placements and how partners respond to publication outside the agreed scope. A “not for Thai users” line and a geo-targeting setting are evidence. They are not a defense on their own.

Content blocking can disrupt the commercial arrangement
Section 20 of the Computer-Related Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, provides court procedures for suppressing dissemination or deleting computer data. Section 20, first paragraph (3), covers data constituting an offense under another law and contrary to public order or good morals, at the request of the competent official or investigator. Gambling advertising can fall within that route. Officials can implement a court order or direct service providers to do so.

The MDES notification on urgent court petitions, B.E. 2569 (2026) expressly includes organizing gambling and directly or indirectly advertising or inviting participation in Schedule A or Schedule B gambling. It was signed on 19 June 2026, published on 17 July 2026, and took effect the next day. Section 20’s urgent procedure allows officials to petition before ministerial approval and report promptly afterward. A court order is still required. The procedure shortens the route to court; it sets no guaranteed number of hours for blocking.

In its 6 October 2026 report, the government described AI-assisted detection of gambling sites, court-ordered blocking, and cooperation with digital platforms. A media business faces interruption of publication and revenue before any criminal case reaches judgment. Agree who can suspend placements, instruct the platform, and preserve the published versions and approval records when a concern arises.

The agreement must allocate control as well as responsibility
Start with enforceability, before negotiating the indemnity. Section 150 of the Civil and Commercial Code makes a transaction void where its object is expressly prohibited by law or contrary to public order or good morals. On that basis, an affiliate or sponsorship agreement whose object is unlawful gambling promotion is void. A publisher cannot enforce the promised fee for that unlawful service merely because it delivered the agreed exposure.

An indemnity intended to secure the same unlawful performance or reimburse its prohibited consequences faces the same Section 150 objection. Calling it a separate promise offers no reliable protection. Where a deal also covers lawful services, Section 173 makes the whole transaction void unless the circumstances support separating the valid part in accordance with the parties’ intention. Section 172 refers restitution to unjust-enrichment rules; Section 411 can bar recovery of a payment made in violation of law or good morals. Neither side can assume that advance payments will be returned.

For lawful content arrangements, define the rights, territory, and permitted uses before allocating responsibility. Our article on the rights architecture behind cross-border content deals discusses that starting point. Here, connect approval duties to actual authority: the publisher can reject substitutions and stop publication; the organizer can control participant-supplied graphics and broadcast material. Address rejected content, interrupted delivery, and the treatment of fees before committing to guaranteed exposure.

Keep records of the people making those decisions. Section 59 of the Criminal Code supplies the general intent requirement, subject to statutory exceptions. Conduct, knowledge, and participation matter more than job titles. Preserve campaign instructions and approval records alongside the agreement.
Review the content, establish whether the proposed contract is enforceable, and put control with the people responsible for publication. Make those decisions before promising exposure. Once the logo is on the jersey, the choices narrow fast.