How can businesses respond to online content regulations across Asia Pacific in 2025?

The regulatory landscape for online content in Asia-Pacific looks set to become increasingly fragmented and complex over the course of 2025. This blog cuts through the noise to distill five key trends in online content regulation. It outlines essential steps that businesses - both major platforms and smaller digital services - must take to prepare and respond.  

For a wider lens on how US political trends are shaping Asia-Pacific tech regulation -  including platforms and online content - see our analysis in Deregulation or doubling down: what does Trump 2.0 mean for tech regulation in Asia-Pacific?

Regulatory trends in 2025 

Increasingly, online safety regulations introduce wide-ranging obligations that apply beyond the largest social media platforms. Businesses from e-commerce platforms, online gaming, to messaging services could be caught in scope. The pace of regulatory change will require businesses to carefully monitor the implications for their products and, in some cases, to engage early with policymakers to dissuade them from introducing particularly problematic provisions.  

Five trends are shaping the direction of travel of online content regulations in this region:  

For additional context on the broader digital and tech policy shifts shaping the region, you may also be interested in The four key tech policy trends in Asia Pacific for 2024.

Trend #1: Erosion of intermediary liability protection 

Asia-Pacific governments are increasingly questioning the principle of intermediary liability protection, also known as “safe harbour”, the principle that online intermediaries are not responsible for what third parties post on their website. Concerns about a wide range of harmful content, from child sexual abuse material to dis- and misinformation as well as content critical of the government itself, are leading policymakers to explore ways to weaken these protections for intermediaries. 

Vietnam’s Decree 147 mandates social media platforms to proactively monitor and remove harmful content. In India, the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines expanded due diligence requirements that services must undertake to avail themselves of safe-harbour protections. The upcoming Digital India Act (DIA) could also potentially impact the existing safe-harbour protections. Malaysia’s recently implemented licensing regime for social media and messaging services requires large platforms to implement robust content moderation measures in order to meet the conditions to be licensed in the country. 

Such measures have raised concerns among industry and civil society about the potential impact on freedom of expression and privacy. Broadly defined definitions of illegal and harmful content, alongside a lack of clarity on standards for compliance and high penalties for non-compliance, may lead online services to err on the side of caution and over-censor content. In some cases, there is a significant political dimension to governments’ ambitions to increase their control over the digital space. 

Trend #2: Move towards age and identity verification  

Legislators and regulators across the region are intensifying efforts to enhance child protection in the digital space, including with measures aimed at restricting children’s access to digital services. This is leading governments to consider imposing requirements on services to verify users’ age and, in some cases, their identity. 

In November 2024, Australia became the first major nation worldwide to ban social media use for under-16s. Policymakers in Singapore and Indonesia have observed Australia’s measures with interest, illustrating the potential for regulatory contagion. Meanwhile, India is holding stakeholder consultations to fine-tune its draft Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) rules. The draft rules require parental consent for the processing of children’s data, effectively prescribing the use of government ID to prove a parent’s relationship to a child. 

However, there are major practical and philosophical issues involved in this shift towards age and identity verification. In Australia, a coalition of academics and civil society groups have expressed concern that the requirements will lead to large-scale collection of data, at odds with privacy protection principles. There are also debates over practicalities, including whether it is possible to prevent young people from using alternatives such as VPNs to circumvent the ban, and whether age verification should be imposed at the “app store” level, or on the platforms or individual websites. 

Trend #3: Pressure to respond more robustly to scams  

The heavy toll that online scams impose on individuals and businesses across the region has made it a critical issue for governments to address. The interconnected nature of online scams - with scammers often gathering information on one platform and targeting victims on another - makes it especially challenging to coordinate effective responses among different types of service. The central question that policymakers are grappling with is how to appropriately distribute responsibilities and liabilities among banks, fintech companies, telecommunications companies, and online services.  

Industry initiatives, including the Global Anti-Scam Alliance (GASA) and GSMA’s Open Gateway initiative, seek to bring different industry players to tackle the problem. At the same time, some governments have moved towards imposing mandatory responsibilities through regulation. Singapore’s Shared Responsibility Framework outlines responsibilities for financial institutions and telecommunications companies. Australia, again acting as one of the front-runners, has introduced the Scams Prevention Framework Bill, which extends liability to social media companies, in addition to telecommunications companies and banks, if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to detect scams. Australia’s bill could set a regional precedent for imposing financial liability on a wide range of businesses. 

The cross-border nature of scams presents a further challenge. Regional initiatives, such as the ASEAN Working Group on Anti-Online Scams, aim to address the issue. However, there is a long way to go in getting the problem under control.  

Trend #4: Concerns around electoral misinformation 

The impact that misinformation, including the role of AI-enabled deepfakes, can have on elections looks set to continue to be a topic of focus for governments in the region. Upcoming elections in Singapore, Australia and the Philippines will be watched closely by governments across Asia-Pacific to see how the online information landscape influences voting patterns. This could also feed into broader societal pressure to implement stricter regulation for AI in general. 

Singapore has taken a proactive stance, passing relatively targeted legislation to ban deepfakes of candidates during general elections. However, regulating mis- and disinformation more broadly presents important challenges, including how to define mis- and disinformation and in determining obligations for online services that don’t effectively amount to mandates to suppress political speech. In 2024, Australia failed to pass a misinformation law due to concerns around the impact on freedom of speech. The US government’s shift towards prioritising freedom of expression over countering misinformation may also involve US pressure on foreign governments not to regulate US tech companies too onerously on misinformation. 

Trend #5: Spread of EU and UK digital regulation 

The EU and UK, in particular the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the UK’s Online Safety Bill (OSA), are important models for Asia-Pacific governments considering online content regulation.  

For a deeper dive into the UK framework shaping thinking in the region, read our blog on the Online Safety Act. https://flint-global.com/blog/online-safety-act/

Thailand’s draft Platform Economy Act (PEA) includes DSA-inspired provisions around risk assessments, notice-and-takedown, and trusted flaggers. But there remain important questions over whether regulatory models can be transplanted wholesale from one jurisdiction to another, especially considering the significant cultural, economic, and institutional differences between the EU, UK, and countries in Asia-Pacific. For example, the UK’s OSA is overseen by Ofcom, a politically independent regulator which now boasts upwards of 500 staff focused on implementing the framework. Most regulators in Asia-Pacific will not benefit either from Ofcom’s resources or its independence, throwing into question the UK framework’s applicability to Asia-Pacific contexts.  

How can businesses prepare now? 

Businesses affected by this wave of regulation must take steps to, firstly, gather intelligence, and secondly, prepare their response:  

Gather intelligence: 

1. Proactively monitor regional developments. Establish systems for monitoring and intelligence-gathering to allow for early detection of policy changes. Ideally, businesses should be abreast of prospective regulatory changes before the law is announced. Early intelligence will help businesses to anticipate, and where possible, shape policy developments.  

2. Identify and establish relationships with key policymakers. Independently of any specific legislative process, map the key individuals in priority markets and establish and maintain positive relationships with them. This will help to anticipate and respond to specific concerns that officials may have. It will also increase the opportunity to influence proposals under consideration, especially as public consultations are often rushed or even non-existent.  

3. Engage with the wider stakeholder ecosystem. Participating in the wider online safety ecosystem will help businesses gain a more holistic understanding of regulatory dynamics and the risks for their service. Trade associations and conferences with broad regional attendance such as Singapore’s AT x SG are a good place to start. 

Prepare response: 

4. Define clear priorities and positions. Businesses need to understand how they might be affected by prospective regulations and accordingly to develop a strategy with clear priorities and positions. This should include tiering provisions - such as proactive monitoring requirements and age verification requirements - according to their risk level. In some cases, businesses may also want to consider developing alternative proposals for how governments can meet their objectives in ways that align with business needs. 

5. Build robust evidence base. The accelerated pace of online safety legislations underscores the need for building a compelling evidence base early. Broad arguments about impacts on freedom of expression or innovation must be supported with concrete data points and case studies to be persuasive. Recently implemented legislation in the UK and EU presents a body of evidence of actual impact that businesses might consider deploying in Asia-Pacific.  

6. Encourage co-regulation and harmonisation. Businesses seeking to make the case against restrictive rules should try to demonstrate how alternatives, such as industry self- and co-regulation, can be equally or more effective. Industry alliances on issues such as scams and child safety should seek to make concrete progress on policymaker priorities. Similarly, supporting greater intra-regional dialogue and cooperation among governments can help to mitigate against regulatory fragmentation. As the 2025 Chair of ASEAN, Malaysia has expressed a commitment to leveraging ASEAN to advance collaboration on these issues. 

For more information on how Flint's Asia Pacific team can help you to develop and execute an effective strategy for navigating the wave of content regulation, contact us here. 

This blog was written by Abigail Chen, Ewan Lusty and David Skelton, with the input of Flint’s Senior Adviser network based across Asia-Pacific. Abigail, based in Hong Kong, has experience in technology and financial policy from her prior roles in a law firm and think tanks. Ewan and David are both based in Singapore. Ewan has been supporting Flint clients on a range of digital policy issues for over four years, prior to which he advised UK government ministers on online safety regulation. David spent seven years at Google, most recently working within the Global Strategy and Innovation team, as well as leading Google’s Policy Planning team within Asia Pacific.