You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 11, 2021

Personal Data Protection and Cybersecurity Laws to Encourage Thailand’s Digital Transformation

Subscribe to Updates

After approximately a decade drafting general personal data protection laws and formulating a regime to protect personal data and privacy rights, Thailand finally issued the country’s first unified personal data protection legislation in 2019.

The public was surprised when the draft Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) was published for the final round of hearings. The draft PDPA largely adopted the preeminent personal data protection standards as expressed in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The government expressed its objective to enhance personal data protection standards in Thailand to meet international standards, which would permit cross border transfers of personal data to Thailand, without any material limitations.

The PDPA, which was finally published in the Government Gazette in May 2019, also established a new independent regulator, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), tasked with enforcing the PDPA. All members of the commission must possess the qualifications required by the PDPA.

The PDPA was enacted with a grace period of one year for the requirements relating to the processing of personal data—which would provide businesses with sufficient time to adjust their practices to ensure compliance with the new requirements. It is a significant undertaking for businesses to adjust from having no general law on data protection to being required to meet high international data protection standards comparable to those in the GDPR.

GPDR concepts that were incorporated into the PDPA include (1) purpose limitation, (2) transparency, (3) lawfulness and fairness, and (4) data minimization. When collecting personal data, data controllers are required to establish a lawful basis to allow for such collection and processing of personal data. The lawful bases for general personal data are also similar to those under the GDPR, with concepts such as contractual necessity, legal obligation, legitimate interest, vital interest, and consent. Special types of personal data, such as health data and biometric data, will be subject to more stringent requirements under the PDPA. Data breach notification requirements are also imposed by the PDPA, and this is one of the obligations that data controllers are expected to meet.

The PDPA also recognizes the concept of extraterritorial effect, which is not common in Thailand. This raises the possibility that overseas data controllers could also be subject to the PDPA’s requirements in respect to their processing activities involving the personal data of data subjects in Thailand. Certain types of overseas data controllers and data processors are also required to appoint a local representative in Thailand without any limitation of liability in respect to the conduct of the overseas data controller or data processor.

In early May 2020, shortly before the PDPA grace period was scheduled to conclude, Thailand found itself embroiled in the global COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to what transpired in Brazil, the Thai government, led by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), decided to postpone the PDPA by issuing a royal decree. In essence, the decree meant that full implementation of the PDPA was further postponed to June 1, 2021, for almost all types of businesses (subject to the details specified in the royal decree).

To prepare for full enforcement of the PDPA, businesses should start the process of attaining a full understanding of the requirements of the PDPA if they haven’t already (see the unofficial English translation of the PDPA). The PDPA includes a number of principles that businesses can prepare to address, but the law does not fully detail or clarify all of the tasks that data controllers and data processors need to undertake in order to ensure full compliance with the PDPA, as the relevant clarifications will be issued in the form of supplemental regulations, notifications, or guidelines during the upcoming 12 months.

Due to the long delay in the PDPC’s selection process, the official appointment process for the PDPC only recently reached its final stage. This may impact the timeline for implementing supplemental regulations, without which businesses may be unsure about whether they need to appoint a DPO, how to establish incident management procedures to detect and report data breaches, and how to respond when data subjects make a request in accordance with their rights. Nevertheless, the Office of PDPC has announced its plan to hold public hearings on the first set of the sub-regulations on February 15–18.

Preparation of Industry Guidelines

While awaiting further developments relating to the PDPA and its supplemental regulations, certain business associations and industry groups are currently in the process of preparing their specific guidelines to ensure compliance with the PDPA, as well as collaborating with industry regulators such as the Bank of Thailand and the Office of Insurance Commission. A key concern for these organizations is the sharing of health data, which is subject to more stringent requirements than general personal data. Under the GDPR, it may be possible to rely on substantial public interest conditions for collecting and processing health data for insurance purposes, without the need to obtain explicit consent from the data subject (i.e., the insured). The PDPA, on the other hand, may not provide exemptions for businesses in the insurance industry or other related industries in regard to the processing of health data for insurance purposes. It is therefore imperative for industry regulators and associations to be actively involved in the development of the PDPA’s supplemental regulations and industry guidelines, so that the needs of the businesses are fully factored in when assessing the requirements to be included in these regulations.

How exactly the PDPA will develop remains to be seen, but it is anticipated that Thailand will look to and rely on personal data protection requirements set out under international standards—particularly those encompassed under the GDPR and personal data protection laws adopted in other countries—and use those principles to formulate and shape its own specific guidelines in the future.

Cybersecurity Act

Passed around the same time as the PDPA, the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019) also plays an important role in the ongoing digital transformation of Thai society. Upon the law’s enactment, there were no subordinate regulations stipulating specific requirements and obligations, especially in relation to the law’s provisions on prevention, protection, and management of cyber risks for government agencies or private organizations providing critical information infrastructure services, or “CII organizations.”

The National Cyber Security Commission recently issued a draft master plan and subordinate regulations for public hearing. These five draft regulations consist of (1) policies and plans on the cybersecurity, (2) a cybersecurity action, (3) management policies in connection with cybersecurity for state agencies and CII organizations, (4) a code of practice for the cybersecurity, and (5) a standard framework for cybersecurity.

Of these, items 3 through 5 have significant implications for state agencies and CII organizations, comparing to the first two draft regulations. The draft management policies in connection with cybersecurity for state agencies and CII organizations indicate that state agencies and CII organizations will have to observe principles of governance, risk, and compliance; prescribe the authority, role, and responsibility of their personnel; implement three lines of defense management; and provide a risk management plan with policies, standards, and guidelines.

Additionally, the draft code of practice for cybersecurity requires state agencies and CII organizations to have a cybersecurity verification procedure, cybersecurity risk assessment, and cybersecurity threat response plan.

Lastly, the draft standard framework for the cybersecurity sets out  guidelines covering (1) cybersecurity risk identification and assessment, (2) cybersecurity risk protection measures, (3) cybersecurity threat verification and monitoring measures, (4) follow-up measures for after a cybersecurity threat is detected, and (5) sustainability and restoration measures relating to cybersecurity threats.

The development of these cybersecurity provisions is still at an early stage and will require further approval from the relevant authorities. However, it is anticipated that Thailand will look to and rely on the principles of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology cybersecurity framework in order to set out internationally accepted guidelines and establish cybersecurity standards in Thailand.

Digital Transformation in Thailand

As access to and adoption of new technologies continues to expand at a rapid pace in Thailand, the PDPA and Cybersecurity Act provide important structure to guide businesses, regulators, and individuals in these technological developments. Moreover, these legal frameworks set a solid basis for sustainable, standards-based growth that responds to the unique needs and challenges of today’s technological landscape. While certain aspects of the laws’ implementation are still being clarified, both pieces of legislation have an important role in both the short- and long-term success of Thailand’s technological advancement.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More