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

August 1, 2025

More Than a Warning: Eight Serious Fines Imposed in Thai Data Protection Cases

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) announced to the press on August 1, 2025, that it had issued eight new administrative fines under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) in five cases of noncompliance by public and private entities. The enforcement actions reflect a growing commitment by the PDPC to penalize noncompliance across all sectors, regardless of organizational type or size. The total amount imposed to date was approximately THB 21.5 million (approx. USD 654,690), underscoring the financial risks tied to PDPA violations.

The five cases—one involving a state agency and the remainder in the private sector—are summarized below.

Case 1: State Agency Providing Online Services to the Public

The order in this case stemmed from a cyberattack on a state agency’s web app, resulting in personal data of 200,000 data subjects being leaked to and sold on the dark web. The software developer was also found to have implemented no privacy by design, lacked an access control system, had no data breach prevention measures, and failed to conduct risk assessments or review existing security measures.

Key noncompliance identified:

  • Lack of appropriate security measures
  • Weak password protection
  • No risk assessment or ongoing review of security measures
  • No data processing agreement with software developer that acted as data processor

The state agency and the developer were each fined THB 153,120 (approx. USD 4,670).

Case 2: Private Hospital

This case involved a hospital that engaged an individual contractor to destroy patient medical record documents. However, the contractor stored the documents at their own premises, failed to follow the required destruction protocols, and ultimately used the medical records to wrap sweets, resulting in the leak of over 1,000 records during the destruction process. The contractor also failed to notify the hospital of the data breach. Although there was a written agreement between the parties, hospital’s failure to properly monitor and control the destruction process in accordance with the prescribed standards led to the medical records not being destroyed and being used for other purposes. The images of the wrapped sweets were later posted on social media and discovered by the PDPC.

Key noncompliance identified:

  • Lack of appropriate security measures
  • Failure to report data breach incidents

The hospital was fined THB 1,210,000 (approx. USD 36,880), while the individual contractor was fined THB 16,940 (approx. USD 515).

Case 3: Computer and Accessories Trading Giant

Over 100 data subjects filed complaints with the PDPC following a call center scam resulting from a data breach incident. The company did not provide remedial action for the affected data subjects within the specified timeframe.

Key noncompliance identified:

  • Lack of appropriate security measures
  • Failure to report data breach incidents
  • No appointment of a data protection officer (DPO)

The company was fined THB 7 million (approx. USD 213,380). The company’s revenue and size were taken into account when determining the fine amount.

Case 4: Cosmetics Company

In this case, a cosmetics company failed to implement adequate security measures as required by the PDPA, resulting in leakage of personal data to a call-center gang (scam operators). The company also failed to notify the Office of the PDPC of the data breach incident as required by the PDPA. However, the company did provide remedial action for the affected data subjects.

Key noncompliance identified:

  • Lack of appropriate security measures
  • Failure to notify the PDPC of data breach incident.

The company was fined THB 2.5 million (approx. USD 76,210).

Case 5: Collectible Toy Company

This case involved a collectible toy company that hired a data processor to manage its reservation system. The system was compromised and accessed by an unauthorized party for about 10 minutes, resulting in approximately 200,000 personal data records being amended without authorization. The toy company, as the data controller, promptly provided remedial action for the affected data subjects. However, the data processor failed to (1) take prompt action to contain the incident, (2) notify the data controller of the incident, and (3) provide remedial action for the affected data subjects.

Key noncompliance identified:

  • Lack of appropriate security measures
  • Failure to comply with data breach notification

The collectible toy retailer was fined THB 500,000 (approx. USD 15,240), while its data processor was fined THB 3,000,000 (approx. USD 91,450).

Considerations

The five cases highlight three common failures that can lead to the imposition of administrative fines:

  • Lack of appropriate security measures or regular review of the measures
  • Failure to report data breach incidents
  • Failure to appoint a DPO

The PDPC reiterated its “zero data breach” objective and stated that organizations are required to comply with the PDPA, ensure appropriate security measures are in place, regularly conduct risk assessments, and establish transparent monitoring systems.

This latest wave of enforcement confirms that PDPA compliance is no longer optional or merely a matter of paperwork, as both public and private entities are now subject to active scrutiny and penalties requiring strict adherence. The recurrence of key noncompliance issues across all five cases provides a clear roadmap of regulatory expectations. Organizations subject to the PDPA should act without delay to reassess their data protection frameworks, address compliance gaps, and ensure preparedness for future enforcement actions.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More