The Administrative Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Royal Thai Army and the Army Commander-in-Chief by author and independent researcher Sarinee Achavanuntakul, iLaw Director Yingcheep Atchanont, and television host Winyu ‘John’ Wongsurawat who claimed they were targeted by Information Operations (IO) in 2021.

Winyu Wongsurawat, Sarinee Achavanuntakul, and Yingcheep Atchanont at the Administrative Court on 30 October.

“Three of us are just ordinary citizens. It is certainly impossible for us to have the power go to court and be equal to the Army and its Commander-in-chief. But having the court believe us on many points like this is an important development,” said Yingcheep, adding that thanks to the openings in the court’s ruling, they may consider filing an appeal since the court had accepted some of their evidence.

The plaintiffs asked the court to order the Royal Thai Army to cease operations against them, remove their names from the list of IO targets, and issue public apologies to them in various media channels for seven days. The court accepted their complaint against the defendants.

The court stated that conducting information operations (IO) against one’s own citizens is unlawful and constitutes a violation of freedom and human rights. And although the Army, citing an internal investigation that found no information had been leaked, claimed the documents submitted by the plaintiffs were fake, the court rejected this claim and confirmed the documents were genuine, thus confirming the existence of the Army's IO units.

However, the court said those units were only engaged in public relations, and that the Royal Thai Army had the right to collect publicly available speeches from social media—practices also used by other government agencies and private businesses. The court also noted that the Army did not specifically target the plaintiffs, as a state media agency was also included on the list for negative coverage of the government.

More importantly, the avatar accounts that targeted the plaintiffs could not be traced back to the Royal Thai Army. Since these avatar accounts may have acted voluntarily, the court established a reasonable doubt and dismissed the case against the defendants on 30 October.

Victims have tried for years to hold security officials accountable for Information Operations. A no-confidence debate earlier this year led by the People’s Party claimed that Thai national security agencies have established a special task force to target political dissidents.

Documents uncovered then led the digital rights think tank Citizen Lab to publish a report which highlights a doxxing operation codenamed JUICYJAM. The operation involves revealing the personal information of political dissidents with malicious intent. Such information allegedly can only be accessed by government agencies. And its publication was often accompanied with violence by unidentified individuals.

The report led to an investigation by the House Committee on National Security, Border Affairs, National Strategy and Reform. The three branches of the armed forces, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Thai Police said they do not conduct such operations. Profiling of politicians and public figures as security threats or High Value Targets (HVT) was described as a “wrong heading”. The Royal Thai Army said there was no commissioning of influencers. Rather, the nature of their relationship was described as “mind-to-mind communication”.

After receiving a complaint from a political activist in March,, Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) concluded an investigation at the end of last month which revealed that the security agencies indeed maintained a watchlist of political dissidents and used IOs against them. They made a recommendation to the Minister of Defence in his capacity as Chair of the Defence Council that the case be investigated to ensure people’s rights and freedom. They also ordered that such operations must cease.