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​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More