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

January 13, 2020

Greater Clarity for Thailand’s Insurance Industry as Personal Data Protection Act Nears

Subscribe to Updates

On January 7, 2020, the Thai General Insurance Association hosted a session on the insurance industry’s compliance with the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which was enacted in 2019 and is due to come into force on May 27, 2020. Representatives from the Office of Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) and the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) gave presentations, followed by a panel discussion with representatives of the OIC and the Thai General Insurance Association.

Speakers were able to give clarity on a number of issues:

  • The PDPA imposes obligations on the board of directors to ensure company compliance with the PDPA. Insurers should establish and introduce a privacy policy to ensure full compliance within the organization.
  • Appointment of a data protection officer (DPO), which can act as a second line of defense, is strongly recommended (if not compulsory). The PDPA does not currently require a DPO to be an employee within the organization; it is possible to outsource the DPO’s function to a third party.
  • Industry associations may choose to establish industry guidelines for compliance with PDPA, and a few associations have already started preparing such guidelines. Industry guidelines for the non-life insurance industry, as well as relevant templates to help insurers comply with the PDPA, are currently being considered.
  • To collect, use, and disclose personal data of the insured, insurers should rely on “contractual obligation” as their lawful basis—not consent. The use of health data (i.e., sensitive personal data) is unique within the insurance industry in comparison to other industries. Obtaining explicit consent for collecting health personal data from the insured in order to enter into a health insurance contract should not be the approach insurers take. To protect the industry against fraud, sharing lists of people that have made fraudulent claims within the industry should not be restricted.
  • The OIC should not be restricted by the PDPA but should be exempted for the purpose of performing its public tasks. Complying with OIC regulations should not be restricted as the PDPA provides “lawful basis – for compliance with legal obligations.”
  • The appointment of the PDPC is still in progress. 

We will continue to monitor PDPA-related developments and provide periodic updates. For further information, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins’ PDPA team at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Insurance

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has opened a public hearing on proposed amendments to the OIC Notification on Criteria for Information Technology Risk Governance and Management for Life Insurance and Non-Life Insurance Companies B.E. 2563 (2020) via the centralized Law platform. The public consultation period runs from May 8, 2026, to June 9, 2026. The proposed amendments aim to elevate the IT risk governance and cybersecurity risk management framework to be more modern and aligned with international standards, with a focus on strengthening cyber resilience, enhancing the role of IT audits, and establishing data governance and data quality controls. The parties affected by these amendments include life insurance companies, non-life insurance companies, and external IT auditors. Key Changes Elevated Role of Board of Directors The proposed notification requires the company’s board of directors to oversee data governance, cybersecurity, and the responsible use of AI. Additionally, the board should include at least one director with IT knowledge or experience. Companies are also required to designate a head of security responsible for information security. The board’s duties are expanded to include oversight of data governance and AI usage, including establishing relevant policies and committees. Enhanced IT Security and Cybersecurity The revised notification consolidates the existing chapters on IT project management, IT security and cybersecurity to reduce redundancy, and introduces significant new measures. These include mandatory multi-factor authentication for material systems, enhanced data security measures such as data masking and data leakage prevention, security hardening requirements, web filtering, and mandatory vulnerability assessment and penetration testing at least annually. New requirements are also introduced for mobile application security, API security, and security measures for emerging technologies such as cloud computing and post quantum cryptography. The cybersecurity framework now encompasses identification, protection, detection, response, and recovery. The draft also introduces source code review
Read More