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

April 9, 2026

Thailand’s Public Consultation on Proposed PDPA Guidelines: Key Updates

Subscribe to Updates

As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities.

The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data.

Structure of the Consultation Process

According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases:

  • Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA.
  • Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations.
  • Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder feedback are being consolidated to prepare draft guidance covering six core thematic areas (see the following section), intended to reflect both international standards and the practical realities of PDPA implementation in Thailand. The input gathered will be used to inform a draft set of guidelines.

Overview of Draft Guidelines

The consultation process has now advanced beyond open‑ended issue identification, with the PDPC presenting substantive draft guidelines that provide clearer insight into the regulatory focus of the six core thematic areas:

  • Lawful basis for processing personal data. The draft guidelines clarify the importance of lawful basis and lay out how organizations should identify, assess, and document lawful bases for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. They emphasize necessity, proportionality, and accountability and address both general and sensitive personal data, supported by practical examples, checklists, and FAQs.
  • Security measures and personal data breach notification. To address this area, the draft guidelines set out a structured framework for security measures, covering technical, administrative, and physical measures, as well as consideration for conducting data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) and managing risks arising from third parties and data transfers. They further provide detailed operational guidance on identifying and assessing personal data breaches, determining notification obligations, incident response procedures, documentation, and timelines for notifying the Office of the PDPC and affected data subjects.
  • Data protection officers (DPOs). The draft guidance clarifies when an organization is required to appoint a DPO and sets out expectations regarding the DPO’s role, professional qualifications, independence, reporting lines, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also includes checklists for key compliance concerns, such as the appointment process, the DPO’s position within the organization, and accessibility to data subjects and the Office of the PDPC.
  • Marketing and direct marketing. These guidelines also set out relevant data protection principles for the use of personal data for marketing and direct marketing purposes, such as purpose limitation, data minimization, lawful bases for processing, and applicable data subject rights. They categorize different types of marketing activities (including direct marketing, online tracking, profiling, and platform‑based targeting), provide practical organizational procedures on transparency, opt‑out mechanisms, and consent withdrawal, and provide illustrative case studies and FAQs on common marketing scenarios.
  • Records of processing activities (ROPAs). The draft ROPA guidelines position ROPAs as a core accountability and compliance tool, highlighting mandatory content, the roles of controllers and processors, and a structured approach to preparation, review, and updating ROPAs. This includes practical examples (e.g., HR, customer management, IT vendors, CCTV), templates, and a questionnaire for gathering information within the organization for filling in the ROPA.
  • Use of CCTV and access control systems. The guidelines address personal data processing involving CCTV and related surveillance technologies in housing estates and condominiums, with the objective of promoting PDPA‑compliant, industry‑consistent practices. Also covered are common risk areas, such as visitor management, biometrics, license plate recognition, and resident portals, as well as practical guidance and FAQs for typical operational scenarios.

Regulatory Signals

The April 1–2 public hearing indicates that the PDPC is moving into a more mature, internationally informed phase of PDPA guidance development while remaining attentive to domestic operational challenges. Although the forthcoming guidelines will not have the force of law, they are expected to influence regulatory expectations, compliance assessments, and enforcement decisions.

Organizations should therefore anticipate greater clarity but not a relaxation of PDPA obligations, and may wish to begin reviewing current compliance frameworks, particularly in higher‑risk processing areas, internal documentation practices, and governance arrangements, in preparation for the final guidance.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
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