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, 2021

IT Risks in Insurance: Thailand’s Regulator Sets Criteria for Monitoring and Managing

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) recently issued two notifications—one for life-insurance companies and another for insurance companies—establishing key criteria and requirements for insurance companies to manage risks relating to IT and cybersecurity.

The notifications, entitled Notifications Re: Criteria for the Supervision and Management of Risks Relating to Information Technology for Life/Non-life Insurance Companies B.E. 2563 (2020) came into effect on January 1, 2021, and cover eight major aspects of IT risk management as detailed below.

IT Governance

Insurance companies are required to monitor and manage IT risks and cyber threats in accordance with the size, characteristics, complexity, and context of their business operations, and each company should have at least one director with knowledge of, or past experience in, the field of information technology.

IT Project Management

Insurance companies are required to develop a written framework for IT project management, covering at least the commencement, implementation, and control of the project, as well as the project closing and post-project auditing. Companies must also appoint a committee for supervising and monitoring IT projects.

IT Security

Insurance companies are required to institute a written IT security policy, which must be reviewed at least once a year or upon implementing any significant changes. The policy must be approved by the board of directors, or a relevant subcommittee appointed by the board of directors.

In outsourcing IT activities to third-party service providers, or entering into any arrangement that allows business partners to connect to or access the company’s IT system, insurance companies are required to specify their own criteria and procedures for the selection of third-party service providers, enter into a written service agreement and a service level agreement with the third-party provider, and conform with other requirements under the notifications. Insurance companies will also be required to comply with the OIC’s forthcoming guidelines on the criteria for the supervision of IT outsourcing to third-party service providers.

IT Risk Management

Insurance companies must also write an IT risk management policy and review it at least once a year, or upon implementing any significant changes. This policy must also be approved by the board of directors or their appointed subcommittee. The companies must also have procedures for IT risk assessment, treatment, monitoring, and reviews.

IT Compliance

Insurance companies are required to implement the required measures for IT compliance to conform with applicable laws and regulations concerning IT and anti-money laundering.

IT Audit

Insurance companies are required to have at least one internal or external IT auditor with experience and expertise in IT auditing. Companies are also required to establish a plan and scope for IT audits, which must be approved by the audit committee and reviewed at least once a year, or upon implementing any significant changes. The IT audit reports must be approved by the audit committee and kept at the company office.

Cybersecurity

Insurance companies are required to establish a framework and guidelines for supervision of and protection against cyber threats, in accordance with cybersecurity laws and commensurate with the size and complexity of their business operations. They must also implement required measures against cyber threats, including risk identification, protection, detection, and countermeasures.

Reporting Obligations

Insurance companies are obligated to report cyber threat incidents to the OIC, and other threats that affect their IT systems, in the following cases:

  • They become aware of any material issue or incident regarding the use of IT that affects the company’s services, systems, reputation, or the data of insured parties. These incidents include cases where a company’s material IT is subject to an actual cyberattack, or there is a potential threat of a cyberattack, that must be reported to the company’s chief executive officer. In this circumstance, the companies are required to report the incident to the OIC, along with other required details, immediately upon becoming aware of it.
  • They are subject to an attack from any cyber threat causing issues or incidents relating to the provision of critical IT infrastructure. These incidents must be reported to the OIC, or the  responsible cybersecurity authority as required under the law, without delay and within 72  hours.

For more information on the requirements under these notifications, or on any aspect of insurance law in Thailand, please contact the Tilleke & Gibbins insurance team at [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Insurance

Technology

Location

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