Alcohol Business Groups Urge Clearer Section 32 Rules to Protect Businesses and Consumers

Alcohol Business Groups Urge Clearer Section 32 Rules to Protect Businesses and Consumers

           BANGKOK, September 13, 2026 – Business alliance sectors are closely monitoring subordinate legislation under Section 32 following a public hearing conducted by the Department of Disease Control (DDC), Ministry of Public Health. They emphasized that the main challenge lies in separating "the provision of product information" from "persuasive advertising." The alliance proposed reviewing the criteria regarding the 5% logo display limit, warning messages covering one-third of space, and online media restrictions, expressing concerns that ambiguous rules would add burdens to small operators, impact content creators, and destroy opportunities to add value to Thai products. They reiterated that they do not oppose control measures, but laws must be clear, proportionate, practical, and fair to all parties.

           The Thai Alcohol Beverage Business Association (TABBA), in collaboration with the Craft Beer Trade Association, the Thai Local Spirit Association, the Thai Retailers Association and entrepreneur networks, further reinforced by the Thailand Content Creator Association (TCCA), organized a seminar titled "Mai Job 32: Requesting a Section 32 That Does Not Harm the Public" at KRAM Bar, Bangkok.

           The forum gathered perspectives from business operators, legal scholars, content creators, and the general public regarding the drafting of subordinate laws under Section 32/1 of the Alcohol Beverage Control Act. This followed a public hearing on September 9, 2026, organized by the Alcohol Beverage Control Office under the DDC, regarding the draft principles, criteria, methods, and conditions announced by the Minister under Section 32/1. Solutions were also proposed for the criteria under Section 32/2 concerning public figures, which could potentially impact the public and media professionals.

           The seminar reached a unanimous consensus supporting the government's objectives to protect children and youth as well as to prevent new drinkers. However, the network recommended that the government review the draft announcement to ensure clarity, proportionality, and alignment with actual business operations, while striking a balance between social prevention, national economic development, and consumer rights protection.

           Mrs. Anchalee Poomsrikaew, President of the Thai Alcohol Beverage Business Association (TABBA), stated from a legal and international standards perspective that the intent of the law should be open-minded, actionable in practice, and fair to adult consumers. She expressed concern over restrictions on displaying product and packaging images, as the current draft law lacks clarity, causing product image presentations intended for product identification to be at risk of being interpreted as "persuasive advertising."

           Under international principles and modern consumer behavior, displaying packaging images alongside factual information, such as ingredients, geographical indication (GI), alcohol content, taste profile, or price is considered a fundamental right of adult consumers to receive accurate information prior to making a purchasing decision. Prohibiting packaging images or limiting them strictly to official websites also impacts operators at all levels, particularly small producers who need to communicate stories of local raw materials, as well as restaurants and food content creators who would be unable to provide accurate and complete product information to consumers.

           Furthermore, it was proposed that the government consider expanding exemptions for displaying product information, promotional materials, and drink menus at sales points to cover all legally licensed liquor retail establishments, such as general restaurants, bars, cafes, hotels, and community shops. Exemptions should not be limited solely to entertainment venues holding licenses under the Entertainment Places Act, B.E. 2509 (1966).

           This is because the majority of restaurant and service operators in Thailand conduct business honestly under valid liquor retail licenses but are not classified as entertainment venues under the definition of said Act due to current legal limitations. Restricting rights exclusively to entertainment venues under the entertainment places law would create unfairness in business operations and impact the overall tourism and service sectors.

           Ms. Seetala Chanwiset, a business and marketing consultant and former advisor to the committee drafting Section 32, pointed out that the origin of Section 32/1 stemmed from separating the word "advertising", meaning receiving compensation to persuade, from the word "public relations," which means providing information without persuasive intent. This was meant to create an avenue for operators to state factual information regarding alcohol products as controlled goods, similar to other controlled items.

           However, the draft principles proposed by government agencies represent a step backward from the intent of the legal amendment. These include banning real product images in favor of logos only, restricting media area on all types of media to no more than 5% whether TV commercials, restaurant menus, or billboards, and requiring large warning messages on par with cigarette labels, which is inappropriate for alcoholic beverage products that the government permits for sale legally.

           "Government agencies should apply the principles of existing laws rather than implementing blanket prohibitions, such as using 'zoning' to control outdoor billboard areas following the same guidelines as liquor sales licenses. The public's concern regarding this law does not stem primarily from penalties, but from uncertainty over what can or cannot be said. Establishing a clearer framework would help reduce official discretion and restore greater freedom of communication to operators," Ms. Seetala added.

           Mr. Suppapong Pringlumpoo, President of the Craft Beer Trade Association, initiated the discussion on Section 32/2 by reading the legal text sentence by sentence to spark debate. He pointed out that the phrase "prohibiting anyone from using their reputation to seek personal benefit... with the intent to persuade" is ambiguous and overly broad.

           The term "anyone" could be interpreted to cover everyone regardless of their level of fame. He proposed that the Content Creator Association participate in drafting recommendations to submit to state agencies before the subordinate draft regulations are announced, which could otherwise create more problems than solutions. He advocated allowing the display of packaging images and product facts separately from persuasive advertising, as well as expanding public relations space exemptions to cover broader areas.

           "A good law must be written clearly, rather than leaving operators and the general public to guess what is right or wrong. The word 'anyone' in Section 32/2 is so broad that it impacts everyone, whether intentional or not. We want to see fair and practical subordinate laws, rather than pushing the burden onto honest professionals to prove themselves in court," Mr. Suppapong said.

           Mr. Suppapong concluded by calling on all affected associations including hotels, restaurants, tourism, and retail-wholesale sectors to join forces in voicing their opposition before the subordinate legislation is arbitrarily enacted.

           Mr. Issara Hata, a YouTuber, content creator, and Vice President of Professional Standards at the Thailand Content Creator Association (TCCA), provided data showing that there are currently around 9 million content creators in Thailand, with approximately 3 million pursuing it as a full-time career, though they have yet to receive official occupational recognition from the state. He explained the hierarchy of content creators (influencers, KOLs, KOCs, etc.), pointing out that follower counts do not correlate with hiring value or credibility. Therefore, follower numbers alone should not be used to define a "public figure."

           "Section 32/2 is written too ambiguously, shifting the burden of interpretation to front-line officers instead of clearly specifying boundaries. Agencies should issue clear regulations, taking inspiration from French law, which uses multiple criteria combined before establishing an offense. The more laws prohibit, the more it creates an advantage for unconscientious content because risky content often achieves higher reach, while creators who want to produce educational content promoting positive culture do not dare to do so," Mr. Issara emphasized.

           He proposed an international transparency standard, such as disclosing sponsorship on every occasion, and concluded by calling on regulatory drafting agencies to understand the industry before issuing rules, as creators themselves do not wish to break the law and want the profession to grow creatively and sustainably.

           Meanwhile, Asst. Prof. Dr. Charoen Charoenchai, representative of the Thai Local Spirit Association and one of the commissioners involved in drafting the Act, reflected on the economic development dimension. He stated that local and community spirits play an important role in adding value to Thai agricultural products, such as rice, sugarcane, and fruits, aligning with the government's policy to drive the creative economy and soft power. Therefore, subordinate laws should facilitate local producers to tell stories of their wisdom, culture, and production processes legally.

           Regarding Section 32/1, he proposed adjusting the format of warning text to be based on scientific risk assessment principles and adopting international symbols or responsible drinking campaign messages to ensure effective communication aligned with international standards.

           Regarding Section 32/2, he proposed that the term "seeking benefit" should be clearly defined to mean receiving monetary compensation only. Non-monetary rewards, such as increased fame or post likes, whether 1 like or 200 likes, should not be considered a benefit. He explained the background of this draft provision, stating that it originated from anti-alcohol groups wanting to prevent influencers from being hired to covertly promote liquor brands, rather than intending to prosecute famous individuals who receive no benefits. He cited the example of high-level government executives promoting OTOP events without compensation, noting that they remain safe because they are performing their official duties rather than seeking personal benefit.

           In conclusion, business representatives unanimously agreed that protecting children and youth, preventing consumption-inducing advertising, and reducing the harmful impacts of alcohol beverages remain essential regulatory objectives. However, the enactment of subordinate legislation must strike a balance between public health goals, consumers' right to information, and business operators' ability to conduct business legally.

           The insights gathered from the "Mai Job 32" forum will be integrated into the business sector's formal submission on the draft subordinate legislation to reflect their feedback to relevant agencies during the ongoing public hearing period, in preparation for official submission to the DDC, Ministry of Public Health, prior to the end of the public consultation on September 18, 2026.

ข่าวภาษาไทย / Thai Version

ภาคีธุรกิจแอลกอฮอล์ จัดเสวนา “ไม่จบ 32 : ขอมาตรา 32 ที่ไม่ทำร้ายประชาชน”