1. Introduction

Attention Capital Governance refers to the legal and economic framework governing the collection, control, monetisation, allocation and commercial exploitation of human attention by digital platforms, advertisers, social-media companies, streaming services, online marketplaces and artificial-intelligence systems.

In Thailand, attention has become an important commercial asset. Digital businesses compete to attract and retain users through:

Personalised advertising and behavioural tracking.

Algorithmic content recommendations.

Infinite scrolling and autoplay mechanisms.

Influencer marketing and sponsored content.

Targeted promotions and personalised pricing.

Online gaming and reward-based engagement.

Collection and commercialisation of personal data.

Artificial-intelligence-driven user profiling.

Although Thai law does not expressly recognise human attention as an independent form of property, several existing legal frameworks can regulate disputes arising from its commercial exploitation.

The principal legal question is:

To what extent can a digital platform commercially exploit an individual's attention without violating privacy, contractual rights, consumer protection, personal autonomy and civil liability principles?

2. Legal Framework Governing Attention Capital in Thailand

A. Civil and Commercial Code

Thailand's Civil and Commercial Code provides the foundation for resolving disputes involving contractual obligations, unlawful conduct, damages and commercial exploitation.

Important provisions include:

Section 420 – Tortious liability: A person who wilfully or negligently unlawfully injures another person's life, body, health, liberty, property or rights must compensate the injured person.

Section 421 – Abuse of rights: The exercise of a right which can only have the purpose of causing injury to another person is unlawful.

Section 423 – False statements: Liability may arise from the wrongful communication of false statements causing damage to another person's reputation, credit or interests.

Section 425 – Employer liability: An employer may be jointly liable for wrongful acts committed by an employee in the course of employment.

Section 438 – Assessment of damages: Courts determine compensation according to the circumstances and gravity of the wrongful act.

Sections 587 onwards – Hire of services: These provisions may become relevant to certain service relationships, depending on their contractual character.

These provisions can become relevant where digital platforms employ deceptive engagement techniques, manipulate users through unlawful conduct or cause demonstrable financial or non-financial harm.

B. Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019)

The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is particularly important because attention-based business models frequently depend on collecting and processing personal information.

Relevant provisions include:

Section 19: Consent requirements.

Section 20: Consent relating to minors and persons with limited legal capacity.

Section 23: Information that must be provided to data subjects.

Section 24: Lawful bases for processing personal data.

Section 26: Sensitive personal data.

Section 27: Restrictions on using or disclosing personal data.

Section 30: Data-subject access rights.

Section 31: Rights concerning copies of personal data.

Section 32: Right to object.

Section 33: Right to erasure or destruction.

Section 34: Right to restrict processing.

Section 35: Accuracy and updating obligations.

Section 37: Data-controller security and related obligations.

Sections 77–78: Civil liability and compensation.

A platform cannot assume that a user's attention, browsing activity or behavioural information is freely available for unlimited commercial exploitation.

C. Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979)

The Consumer Protection Act is relevant where attention is acquired through misleading advertising, manipulative promotions, hidden commercial sponsorship or deceptive digital interfaces.

Its provisions concerning advertising control, consumer rights and unfair commercial representations may apply to online businesses.

D. Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001)

This legislation supports the legal recognition of electronic transactions, electronic records and electronic contracts.

It is relevant to:

Digital subscriptions.

Online advertising agreements.

Automated consent mechanisms.

Platform-user contractual relationships.

Electronic evidence of user interactions.

E. Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017)

Attention-based platforms may also raise competition-law issues when they use market power to restrict access to audiences, impose restrictive advertising arrangements or engage in exclusionary conduct.

3. Major Categories of Attention Capital Governance Disputes

A. Unauthorised Commercial Exploitation of User Attention

A dispute may arise when a platform collects behavioural information and uses it to generate advertising revenue without providing adequate information or obtaining a legally required lawful basis.

Examples include:

Selling user browsing profiles to advertisers.

Using private browsing behaviour for targeted advertising.

Tracking users across multiple websites.

Monetising sensitive personal information.

Using behavioural analytics beyond the disclosed purpose.

Legal analysis: Sections 19, 23, 24, 26 and 27 of the PDPA, together with Sections 420 and 421 of the Civil and Commercial Code, may provide grounds for regulatory action or civil claims.

B. Algorithmic Attention Manipulation

Digital platforms use algorithms to determine which content users see and how frequently they encounter it.

Disputes may concern:

Addictive recommendation systems.

Artificially increasing screen time.

Repeated exposure to harmful content.

Discriminatory content distribution.

Manipulative notifications.

Deliberately concealing alternative content.

The legal difficulty is distinguishing ordinary commercial optimisation from unlawful manipulation.

A claimant would generally need to establish a recognised legal wrong, such as misleading conduct, breach of contract, unlawful personal-data processing or tortious injury. Merely spending excessive time on a platform does not automatically establish a civil cause of action.

C. Dark Patterns and Deceptive Interface Design

Dark patterns are digital interface techniques that influence users into making decisions they might not otherwise make.

Examples include:

Making subscription cancellation unnecessarily difficult.

Hiding recurring payment conditions.

Using misleading countdown timers.

Making consent buttons prominent while concealing refusal options.

Automatically enrolling users in paid services.

Using confusing privacy settings.

Such practices may generate consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act and contractual disputes under the Civil and Commercial Code.

D. Influencer Marketing and Attention Monetisation

Influencers convert audience attention into advertising revenue through sponsored posts, endorsements, livestreams and affiliate marketing.

Legal disputes can arise when:

Sponsored content is presented as independent opinion.

Influencers make misleading product claims.

Advertisers conceal commercial relationships.

Fake engagement metrics are used to obtain advertising payments.

Influencers misuse followers' personal information.

The relevant legal principles include advertising regulation, contractual obligations, tort liability and personal-data protection.

E. Children's Attention and Digital Exploitation

Children may be particularly vulnerable to behavioural advertising, persuasive interface design, gaming rewards and algorithmic recommendations.

Important legal questions include:

Whether the platform has obtained legally valid consent.

Whether the processing complies with the PDPA's rules concerning minors.

Whether advertising is misleading or unfair.

Whether the platform has adequately disclosed its commercial practices.

Whether parents or guardians can seek remedies for resulting harm.

F. Competition and Control of Attention Markets

Large digital platforms can exercise substantial influence over the distribution of consumer attention.

Potential competition disputes include:

Self-preferencing in content recommendations.

Exclusive advertising arrangements.

Restricting access to audience analytics.

Discriminatory advertising prices.

Exclusion of competing content providers.

Exploitation of network effects and user-data advantages.

The Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 may become relevant where the conduct satisfies its statutory requirements.

4. Important Thai Case Laws and Judicial Precedents

Important legal qualification: Thailand does not yet have an established body of reported appellate judgments specifically dealing with the legal ownership or commercial exploitation of attention capital. The following decisions are relevant analogies involving privacy, online publication, platform responsibility, digital information and unlawful exploitation. They should not be represented as direct judgments recognising attention as property.

Case 1. Supreme Court Decision No. 253/2520 (1977) – Unauthorised Opening and Disclosure of Private Correspondence

Facts: A person received a letter addressed to another individual, opened it and disclosed its contents.

Legal principle: The disclosure of private correspondence can give rise to legal responsibility and damage to the person whose private information has been exposed.

Relevance: This decision provides an early foundation for protecting personal privacy against unauthorised information disclosure.

Application to attention capital: A digital platform that improperly accesses or discloses private communications or behavioural information may face analogous privacy and civil-liability questions.

Case 2. Prosecutor v. Chiranuch Premchaiporn – Black Case No. อ.1167/2553

Facts: Chiranuch Premchaiporn, associated with the Prachatai online news platform, faced proceedings concerning comments posted by third parties on an online discussion forum.

Legal principle: The case examined the responsibilities of an online intermediary concerning third-party content under Section 15 of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550.

Relevance: Digital platforms do not operate entirely outside legal responsibility simply because content is generated by users.

Application to attention capital: Platforms monetising user-generated content through advertising and audience engagement must consider the legal consequences of their content-management systems and intermediary responsibilities.

Case 3. Office of the Special Prosecutor v. Nopawan (Bento) (2013)

Facts: The defendant was accused of disseminating an unlawful online message using a webboard pseudonym.

The first-instance court questioned whether an IP address alone sufficiently established the identity of the person responsible. The appellate proceedings subsequently reached a different conclusion.

Legal principle: Digital attribution and electronic evidence require careful judicial assessment.

Relevance: An online account, device identifier or IP address cannot automatically resolve every question of individual responsibility.

Application to attention capital: This is relevant when disputes concern automated engagement, fraudulent clicks, manipulated audience figures and the attribution of online conduct.

Case 4. Ministry of Information and Communication Technology v. Katha (2014)

Facts: This matter concerned online content and the legal regulation of internet-based information.

Legal principle: The application of the Computer Crime Act to online publication raises questions about the responsibility of persons involved in distributing or communicating digital information.

Relevance: Digital content distribution is subject to the applicable legal framework even when the communication takes place through internet-based systems.

Application to attention capital: Online platforms, advertising distributors and content publishers must consider their respective roles in distributing commercially monetised material.

Case 5. Supreme Court Decision No. 4403/2566 – Defamation Through Social-Media Publication

Facts: The case concerned defamatory material published about an individual through a social-networking platform.

Legal principle: Publishing defamatory statements on social media can constitute defamation by publication under Section 328 of the Thai Penal Code. The Court also distinguished the interests protected by the defamation provision and Section 14(4) of the Computer Crime Act.

Relevance: Online distribution can create legal consequences for individuals who use digital platforms to reach large audiences.

Application to attention capital: A platform's ability to amplify content and attract large audiences makes the legal consequences of online publication particularly significant.

Case 6. Supreme Court Decision No. 976/2567 – Online Broadcasting and Defamation by Publication

Facts: An online programme broadcast through Facebook and YouTube referred to an individual without directly naming that person. The surrounding statements nevertheless enabled listeners to identify the individual.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that the statements constituted defamation by publication under Section 328. It rejected the argument that the absence of a direct name prevented identification.

Legal principle: The court considers the overall context of online communication rather than examining isolated words.

Relevance: Digital broadcasts can cause reputational damage through widespread distribution.

Application to attention capital: Content creators and commercial platforms must consider the legal risks associated with monetising high-reach broadcasts, including the amplification of unlawful or harmful content.

Case 7. Thai Criminal Court – Personal Data Protection Ruling Against an Insurance Company (March 2024)

Facts: An insurance company collected and disclosed an individual's blood-alcohol test results and a photograph of the individual without explicit consent. The disclosure was connected with the rejection of an insurance claim.

Decision: The first-instance criminal court dismissed the case. It considered that processing the sensitive information was necessary for the defence of legal claims under Section 26(4) of the PDPA.

Legal principle: Explicit consent is not the only possible lawful basis for processing sensitive personal data. The processing must nevertheless satisfy an applicable statutory exception.

Application to attention capital: Digital platforms cannot rely on the mere existence of user consent as their only compliance consideration. They must establish the lawful basis and purpose of processing behavioural information.

This was a first-instance decision, not a Supreme Court precedent. The judgment's case number is not identified in the available published account.

Tilleke & Gibbins

5. Civil Liability of Digital Platforms

Digital platforms may face civil liability when their attention-related commercial practices cause legally recognised harm.

A. Liability under Section 420

A user may bring a tort claim where the claimant establishes:

An unlawful act or omission.

Intentional or negligent conduct.

Injury to a legally protected interest.

A causal connection between the conduct and the damage.

For example, unauthorised disclosure of personal information or deceptive conduct causing measurable injury may support a claim.

B. Liability under Sections 77–78 of the PDPA

These provisions establish civil liability for damage resulting from violations of the PDPA.

Potential remedies include:

Compensation for actual damage.

Necessary expenses incurred to prevent or remedy damage.

Punitive damages where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Punitive damages may be awarded up to twice the actual damages.

C. Contractual Liability

Where a platform breaches its user agreement, subscription agreement or advertising contract, contractual remedies may become available.

Examples include:

Misrepresentation of advertising performance.

Unauthorised changes to subscription terms.

Failure to honour cancellation arrangements.

Improper use of customer information contrary to contractual commitments.

6. Evidence Required in Attention Capital Disputes

Digital evidence is particularly important because the relevant conduct frequently occurs through automated systems.

The Electronic Transactions Act and applicable procedural and evidence rules are relevant to the admissibility and assessment of electronic records.

7. Jurisdiction and Regulatory Authorities

Several Thai institutions may become involved in attention-related disputes.

The Online Shopping Division of the Civil Court, established in January 2022, also illustrates Thailand's development of specialised procedures for online commercial disputes.

unctad.org

8. Major Challenges in Thailand

A. Absence of Independent Attention Ownership

Thai legislation does not expressly establish human attention as an independently transferable property right.

Therefore, a person's attention should not automatically be treated as property owned by a platform merely because the platform provides a digital service.

B. Difficulty Establishing Algorithmic Causation

A claimant may struggle to demonstrate that a recommendation algorithm directly caused psychological, financial or reputational injury.

C. Cross-Border Platform Operations

International digital companies may collect information from Thai users while processing it in foreign jurisdictions.

This creates questions concerning territorial application, applicable law and enforcement.

D. Imbalance Between Platforms and Users

Large platforms often possess substantially more information about their algorithms, advertising systems and user-tracking practices than individual consumers.

E. Limited Attention-Specific Judicial Precedents

Thailand's developing PDPA jurisprudence and absence of reported appellate decisions specifically addressing attention-capital exploitation leave important questions unresolved.

Chambers+1

9. Suggested Legal and Governance Reforms

Thailand could strengthen its attention-capital governance framework through:

Algorithmic transparency: Require meaningful disclosure of important recommendation and advertising practices.

Consent protection: Improve transparency and user control over behavioural tracking.

Dark-pattern regulation: Address deceptive interface designs and manipulative subscription mechanisms.

Children's protection: Strengthen safeguards against exploitative advertising and engagement systems.

Advertising accountability: Improve disclosure of sponsored content and influencer relationships.

Collective redress: Facilitate appropriate class-action proceedings where numerous users suffer similar harm.

Competition oversight: Investigate exclusionary practices involving control over digital audiences.

Independent audits: Encourage appropriate examination of high-risk recommendation and profiling systems.

10. Conclusion

Civil Law and Attention Capital Governance Disputes in Thailand represent an emerging area of digital civil liability, consumer protection, privacy law and platform accountability.

The most important legal foundations are:

Civil and Commercial Code Sections 420 and 421.

Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562.

Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522.

Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544.

Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560.

Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550, as amended.

The seven judicial matters discussed above provide relevant legal analogies, but they do not establish a standalone legal right of attention ownership.

The central legal principle is that commercial exploitation of human attention must remain subject to lawful processing, contractual fairness, consumer protection, privacy safeguards and civil liability.

Research qualification: The cases are not all civil judgments; some concern criminal or intermediary liability. They are included because of their relevance to the legal issues surrounding digital attention markets. This is an academic overview rather than a substitute for checking the original Thai judgments and current legislation in an actual dispute.