The Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases delivered a shocking ruling on February 6, sentencing Prof Emeritus Pirongrong Ramasoota, a member of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), to two years in prison with no suspension.
The court found Pirongrong guilty of intentionally seeking to harm True Digital Group by improperly exercising her official duties under Section 157 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, the court determined that she had falsified the minutes of a meeting and that her statement, “to defeat the giant”, indicated a desire to cause harm to the company.
This ruling has sparked significant debates and concerns about its broader implications for consumer protection and the rule of law in Thailand.
The case background
The legal dispute began in 2023 when a consumer complaint was filed with the NBTC regarding advertisements integrated into content streamed via TrueID, an Over-The-Top (OTT) service operated by True Digital.
OTT services, which deliver media content over the internet without the involvement of traditional broadcast or cable operators, remain largely unregulated in Thailand. This regulatory gap has led to ambiguity about the NBTC's authority to oversee such services.
In response to the consumer complaint, Pirongrong, a member of the NBTC, chaired two subcommittee meetings to discuss the matter and propose potential solutions.
Subsequently, the NBTC issued a letter signed by the acting deputy secretary-general, notifying 127 radio and television broadcast license holders to review the broadcasting networks or platforms that air their content, emphasizing adherence to the must-carry rule.
True Digital Group viewed the NBTC’s actions as damaging to its reputation and business interests. In 2024, the company filed a legal case against Pirongrong in the Central Criminal Court, accusing her of dereliction of duty.
The Central Criminal Court ruled last week that Pirongrong had abused her power with the intent to cause damage to True Digital Group. The court’s decision was based on the premise that her actions constituted dereliction of duty, a serious offense under Thai law.
Ruling comes in for criticism
Legal experts and critics have raised questions about the rationale behind this ruling. They argue that the court’s reasoning appears unconvincing and that the allegations of Pirongrong's abuse of power lack substantial evidence.
“Two key components of Section 157 of the Criminal Code are that a person must be exercising their official duties and doing so dishonestly. In this case, the deputy secretary-general signed the NBTC notification, not Pirongrong. The court cited her statement at the meeting, ‘to defeat the giant’, as evidence of her intent to harm the interests of True Digital Group."
"However, witness accounts from that meeting need to be carefully assessed to determine whether they provide concrete evidence of Pirongrong’s dishonest intentions,” said Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, director of the Law Centre at Thammasat University.
Prinya emphasized that this was only his preliminary assessment of the court’s ruling. He noted that he needs to wait for the full details of the verdict, which have not been released yet to the public by the court.
Regarding the court’s finding that the minutes of the meeting were forged, Prinya questioned why the court considers the approval of the meeting minutes to be an act of forgery and where the concrete evidence for this assertion lies. He emphasized, however, that he needed to wait for the full details of the verdict.
Additionally, Prinya questioned the severity of the two-year prison sentence without suspension that the court imposed on Pirongrong, especially given that her actions were intended to protect consumer interests. “Why is protecting consumer interests considered a crime?” he asked.
Regarding OTT services, he noted that while no specific laws currently regulate these platforms, paragraph three of Section 60 of the Constitution grants the NBTC the authority to carry out its relevant duties to prevent unfair exploitation of consumers and imposing unnecessary burden on consumers.
A SLAPP suit?
Many observers do not agree with the court’s ruling, fearing that it could have far-reaching consequences.
There is a growing concern that regulators might become reluctant to protect consumer interests out of fear of facing similar legal repercussions. Some critics have even labeled the case as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, designed to intimidate and silence regulatory oversight.
“It resembles a kind of SLAPP suit. I’m concerned that officials may hesitate to think and act in the interest of the public in the future due to the implications of this court ruling under Section 157 of the Criminal Code,” said Sakon Waranyuwattana, former chairman of the Trade Competition Commission, an independent regulatory body.
Danger of regulatory capture?
Thailand’s independent watchdogs, such as the NBTC and the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand, are said to be influenced by oligarchic interests.
Dominant market players may find ways to place their representatives in various regulatory bodies, leading to concerns about regulatory capture.
This issue has been highlighted by Somkiat Tangkitvanich, president of the Thailand Development Research Institute, an independent think tank, who has raised the concern multiple times in public forums.
There have also been reports of internal conflicts within the NBTC, where some commissioners allegedly represent the interests of large businesses, against those advocating public interest.
Pirongrong was among the minority of commissioners who had voted against the controversial merger between True Corporation and DTAC in 2022 — Thailand’s second- and third-largest mobile network operators.
At that time, academics and consumer groups had campaigned against the merger due to concerns about reduced competition in the telecom market ultimately being disadvantageous to consumers.
Implications for consumer protection
The ruling against Pirongrong has significant implications for consumer protection in Thailand. The NBTC, as the regulatory authority, plays a crucial role in safeguarding consumer rights in the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors.
If regulators are deterred from taking action due to fear of legal consequences, consumer protection could be severely compromised.
“I was present to hear the court ruling and it was very disappointing,” said Saree Aongsomwang, secretary-general of the Office of the Thailand Consumers Council. “Many sectors of society have expressed their concerns about the potential negative impact on consumer protection,” said Saree.
The public has reacted strongly to the ruling, with forums held to debate the issue and people taking to social media using the hashtag #SavePirongrong. Saree stated that the consumer council would accept any complaints from consumers regarding unfair treatment by businesses.
Pirongrong is set to appeal the verdict, having been granted bail, and her status as an NBTC commissioner remains intact.
Meanwhile, experts and individuals in the broadcasting industry are urging the NBTC to expedite the legislative process to regulate OTT services.
