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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More