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

March 20, 2020

COVID-19 Prevention Measures under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act

Subscribe to Updates

Measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 are being implemented in Thailand just as the country approaches the implementation of its landmark new Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which will come into effect in May 2020. This adds another layer of complexity to the COVID-19 issue, as employers find that they need to consider new categories of employee personal data, just as restrictions on doing so are due to come into force. From an employment perspective, employers are considered to be personal data controllers under the PDPA, and will thus be subject to extensive requirements when collecting, using, or disclosing employees’ personal data, once the PDPA comes into force.

To help employers stay compliant, we address below the most common questions about the legality of common COVID-19 prevention measures under the PDPA. Note that, while these FAQs specifically address issues for employers, the PDPA also protects the personal data of customers, business partners, vendors, and any other individuals whose data you might hold or process. Businesses should therefore be ready to comply with the PDPA in relation to all personal data that they hold.

Screening Measures: Checking Physical/Health Conditions

Can you check the temperature of visitors for the purpose of preventing the outbreak?

Yes.

Can you record their temperature? Can it be detailed with the individual’s personal data?

The temperature of visitors can be recorded, but the purpose should be communicated to the individuals, and it is imperative to keep information about a person’s COVID-19 status strictly confidential.

The data in question is considered to be personal data under the law, so retention of the data must be in strict compliance with the requirements and restrictions of the PDPA. Moreover, a person’s temperature reading, when combined with other personal data (e.g., name, contact information, physical symptoms), could be considered what the law terms “sensitive personal data,” for which the PDPA provides enhanced requirements, restrictions, and penalties.

Thus, it is preferable from a compliance point of view to refrain from recording the temperature of everyone entering the premises alongside their personal details. Regardless, the Communicable Disease Act also requires that this type of information, if retained or processed, be kept confidential and processed anonymously.

Forced Disclosure of Certain Physical or Health Conditions

Can you order your staff to disclose symptoms associated with COVID-19?

This is allowed under current data privacy and employment law, and employers may ask employees to disclose this information to HR. Employers can also require a health certificate or medical report.

Once the PDPA is fully effective, any such information already held may still be kept. However, restrictions on obtaining such sensitive personal data (i.e., health-related data) may need to be revisited.

Can you order your staff to disclose their travel history?

Yes—this is also allowable under both data privacy and employment regulations, and the requirement can be issued as a single announcement together with the requirement to disclose symptoms. This position will be unaffected by the PDPA.

Can you order your staff to disclose the travel history of their family members or close contacts?

Yes. However, it would be prudent to request this information only on a need-to-know basis—a practice referred to as “data minimization.”

If a COVID-19 Infection Is Confirmed

Can you publically communicate the presence of a confirmed case?

Yes. However, any data that could identify the infected individual should not be disclosed. All written communications should be carefully drafted, keeping in mind that information that might not identify an individual to one audience (such as the public) could identify them to another (such as coworkers).

Can you require (and retain) a medical certificate to confirm the case?

Yes. However, once the PDPA is fully effective, the infected individual, once fully recovered, is entitled to exercise his or her right to be forgotten.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
Read More
April 9, 2026
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
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More