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 3, 2025

Thailand’s PDPC Hosts Event to Promote Data Protection Awareness

Subscribe to Updates

On January 28, 2025, the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) hosted Data Privacy Day 2025, bringing together over 1,000 participants from both the public and private sectors. The event underscored the importance of personal data protection and aimed to raise nationwide awareness while fostering a culture of compliance. During the event, the PDPC reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening Thailand’s data protection framework to align with international standards. The initiative also emphasized the collective goal of achieving zero data breaches.

During the first session of the event, Mr. Prasert Jantararuangtong, deputy prime minister and minister of digital economy and society, delivered a speech highlighting the role of personal data protection in fostering Thailand’s digital economy. He emphasized that strong data protection measures enhance business credibility, build consumer trust, and attract foreign investment. He also addressed the PDPC’s “zero data breach” policy and the ongoing issue of data leaks, which have been exploited by call-center scam operations to deceive the public and cause financial harm.

Additionally, Mr. Prasert announced that the Thai cabinet has approved a draft amendment to the Emergency Decree on Cyber Crime Prevention and Suppression B.E. 2566 (2023), commonly referred to as the “Cyber Crime Decree.” The draft will now proceed to the Council of State for review before its official enactment. Key provisions of the amendment include holding financial institutions, telecom providers, and social media platforms accountable for technology-related crimes; requiring compensation for victims; and enforcing stricter security measures. Cyber offenses, including personal data trading, face harsher penalties of up to THB 5 million in fines or five years of imprisonment. Authorities are also empowered to suspend suspicious SIM cards for committing illegal activities and expedite monetary refunds for victims without court approval.

In the second session, the Office of the PDPC presented its 2024 Privacy Maturity Model and Privacy Index report, summarizing key findings and developments in Thailand’s personal data protection landscape.

Privacy Maturity Model

The Privacy Maturity Model consists of assessment criteria designed to evaluate the readiness of government agencies and private entities in implementing personal data protection measures. The Privacy Maturity Model provides online self-assessment questionnaires for organizations to assess their compliance levels under the PDPA.

The model classifies organizations into five maturity levels based on compliance status and implementation of personal data protection measures:

  • Initial (Level 1) – Minimal compliance, with key legal requirements not yet fully implemented.
  • Managed (Level 2) – A structured approach to data protection is in place, but gaps remain in meeting full legal requirements.
  • Defined (Level 3) – Full compliance with legal requirements has been achieved in a systematic manner.
  • Measured (Level 4) – Ongoing performance monitoring and assessment have been implemented to enhance effectiveness.
  • Optimizing (Level 5) – Data protection practices are continuously refined and improved based on evaluation metrics.

The Privacy Maturity Model assesses organizations across 10 areas: oversight, policies and procedures, training and awareness, individuals’ rights, transparency, ROPA and lawful basis, contracts and data sharing, risk management, data security, and breach response and monitoring. The assessment aligns with the PDPA, covering both legal requirements and best practices.

Overall, the first-year Privacy Maturity Model assessment recorded an average score of 2.72 out of 5. In 2024, 142 entities participated in the assessment, including 69 government agencies and 31 private sector organizations, spanning various industries. The financial, investment, and insurance industries achieved the highest scores, with 47% of participating organizations scoring above the average. Across all categories, the highest-scoring areas were (1) Policies and Procedures (e.g., implementation of privacy policies), (2) Training and Awareness, and (3) Oversight. Conversely, the lowest-scoring areas were (1) contracts and data sharing (e.g., lack of safeguards for B2B and cross-border data sharing), (2) breach response and monitoring (e.g., absence of data breach handling policies or breach notification procedures), and (3) individuals’ rights (e.g., lack of identity verification before processing data subject requests).

Privacy Index

The key difference between the Privacy Index and the Privacy Maturity Model is that while the Privacy Maturity Model is an internal assessment based solely on self-assessment and internal data, the Privacy Index incorporates external data for a more comprehensive evaluation. The Privacy Index assigns scores on a scale of 0 to 100 and evaluates organizations using two types of data sources:

  • Primary data – Information obtained from questionnaires or evidence submitted by the organization.
  • Secondary data – Information collected from external sources, including reported data breaches, complaints filed with the PDPC, or publicly available information.

Overall, the average Privacy Index score was 51.03, with private-sector organizations scoring an average of 63.12, while the financial, investment, and insurance industries achieved the highest scores. The results suggest that organizations generally demonstrate a moderate level of personal data protection, complying with legal requirements to some extent. However, organizations should strive for more comprehensive compliance, with greater emphasis on preparing and maintaining ROPAs to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities and on enhancing data security measures based on these findings.

Outlook

The PDPC’s Data Privacy Day 2025 event highlighted the importance of personal data protection and set a clear direction for Thailand’s digital future. The implementation of the Privacy Maturity Model and Privacy Index provides organizations with valuable tools to assess and improve their data protection practices. As Thailand continues to strengthen its data protection framework, the collective efforts of the public and private sectors to put in place strong safeguards and procedures will help the country achieve the goal of zero data breaches.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
Read More
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
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