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

May 9, 2023

AI, Privacy, and Data Protection: Legal Considerations in Southeast Asia

Subscribe to Updates

The significance of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly increasing worldwide, and Southeast Asia is no exception, as it plays a leading role in the technological development of many industries. AI has already proven its importance for driving business growth in areas such as e-commerce, finance, and healthcare, but its remarkable potential also raises concerns around privacy. As AI systems are designed to collect and process large amounts of data to improve their operation, it is necessary to balance the development of technology with the protection of individuals’ privacy.

Current Frameworks in Southeast Asia

This concern has been on regional policymakers’ agendas for many years. The ASEAN Framework on Personal Data Protection, which was adopted in 2016, is not legally binding and has no enforcement mechanism, but it serves as a guide for ASEAN member states in developing their own data protection laws and regulations.

Domestic data privacy laws are currently in force in five ASEAN member countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore—while Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Decree is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2023. This presents a challenge for ASEAN members, as adopting AI-related technology can further complicate data protection efforts due to the amount of personal data AI systems collect, as well as the complexity of the data used to train the AI algorithm.

Some ASEAN members have also made progress in regulating AI. For instance, Singapore released the Model AI Governance Framework in 2019 and launched the AI Governance Testing Framework and Toolkit in 2022—the world’s first such framework. Similarly, Thailand issued the Artificial Intelligence Ethics Guideline in 2019 to help government agencies in the development, promotion, and use of AI, and in 2023 adopted the Thailand Artificial Intelligence Guidelines to help the private sector develop AI-related work. These guidelines primarily focus on principles and ethics in developing AI-related technology, but lack a step-by-step implementation process that connects with privacy laws. Despite these early steps by some countries in ASEAN, there are no regional policies or consensus frameworks on how to implement and regulate AI in accordance with privacy laws in ASEAN member countries.

Legal Risks

If AI-related technology is developed without consideration for data protection, there is a risk of breaching personal data and affecting numerous data subjects, potentially resulting in mass litigation. Moreover, the lack of robust privacy laws and frameworks in many ASEAN member countries, coupled with the growing use of AI-related technology, also increases the risk of legal liabilities for companies that make use of this increasingly common technology.

In the event of a data breach or misuse of personal data, affected individuals may seek legal recourse against the companies that collected and processed their personal information. Such legal actions can result in significant financial and reputational damages for businesses, highlighting the need for effective data protection regulations and AI-related technology frameworks in ASEAN countries.

Technology companies with connections to developing AI systems are especially vulnerable. With the vast amount of data required for developing AI systems, these companies will face the challenge of lawfully collecting and processing data from a huge range of sources and data subjects.

Outlook

As AI-related technology continues to evolve and play a crucial role in the growth of many industries in Southeast Asia, it is important to ensure that its development is balanced with the protection of individuals’ privacy. While some ASEAN members have made progress in adopting AI regulations, more needs to be done to enforce data privacy laws and develop consensus frameworks for regulating AI in accordance with privacy laws. Such efforts will not only help protect individuals’ privacy but also mitigate legal risks associated with the use of AI-related technology. ASEAN member countries must continue to work together to achieve a balance between technological development and data protection in support of sustainable and ethical innovation for our digital future.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More