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 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More