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​ 

July 14, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published guidelines establishing a risk-based framework for the responsible use of artificial intelligence by telecom licensees. Released on July 2, 2026, the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Telecommunications Services address governance structures, ethical principles, lifecycle management, and consumer protection obligations. Scope and Legal Context The nonbinding guidelines apply to holders of telecom business licenses under Thailand’s telecom licensing laws, but only with respect to the use of AI in providing licensed telecom services. Entities without such licenses are not directly subject to the guidelines, though they may be affected as third-party AI solution providers to licensees. The guidelines supplement and should be read alongside existing laws, including the Cybersecurity Act, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), the Computer Crime Act, and the NBTC Notification regarding Measures to Protect Telecommunications Service Users’ Rights Regarding Personal Data, Privacy Rights, and Freedom of Telecommunications, as well as forthcoming AI governance legislation being drafted by the ETDA. AI Governance Structure Licensees are expected to establish committees, working groups, or designated officers at both policy and operational levels to set strategic direction for AI use, formulate governance policies and tools, and oversee risk management. Roles, responsibilities, and accountability should be clearly defined for all personnel across every stage of the AI lifecycle—including for third-party AI solution providers and outsourced service providers, whose obligations should be explicitly documented in service agreements. Core Principles The guidelines identify six core principles that licensees should adhere to when deploying AI: Compliance with laws, ethics, and international standards: AI should respect privacy, dignity, and human rights, and content filtering for inputs and outputs should be considered. For example, the AI should not be designed and developed to be used in generating false information, supporting illegal activities, or causing
Read More
July 10, 2026
Vietnam has taken a significant step in regulating its e-commerce sector with the issuance of a new decree guiding the country’s recently enacted Law on E-Commerce. Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP, issued on June 30, 2026, and taking effect the following day, addresses mandatory platform policies, registration requirements for offshore platforms, additional obligations on platform operators, and market access conditions for foreign investors. Mandatory Policy Contents The decree sets out detailed guidance on the required contents of various platform policies, covering pricing, payment, display priority, livestream sales, delivery, returns, method of service provision, and service termination and refunds. Clarification of Obligations for Platform Operators The decree provides clarification of the obligations applicable to platform operators. Notably, intermediary e-commerce platform operators with online ordering functions must: Collect specific information to implement electronic identity verification of sellers; Cooperate with regulators by reporting online through the state e-commerce management system and by blocking, suspending, or removing content upon request of a competent authority; Maintain a mechanism to store contract data, including price, product or service information, and parties’ information, for at least three years from the date of contract conclusion; and If qualifying as a “large digital platform” under consumer protection law, maintain an online system for receiving and handling complaints and requests, and comply with enhanced content-removal requirements. Registration Requirements for Offshore Platforms Offshore e-commerce platforms, whether direct-sales, intermediary, social-network-based, or integrated, that conduct e-commerce activity in Vietnam must register with the Ministry of Industry and Trade if the platform: Allows Vietnamese-language selection; Uses a “.vn” domain; or Reaches 100,000 or more transactions with Vietnam-based buyers within a calendar year. Notably, the registration requirement now captures not only traditional intermediary platforms, but also direct-sales platforms. Foreign Investment Conditions Foreign investors holding a controlling interest in an intermediary e-commerce platform, a social media platform
Read More
July 8, 2026
On July 7, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) issued a press release announcing the establishment of two new subcommittees designed to intensify oversight of digital platforms and modern trade businesses. The formation of the digital platform subcommittee marks a significant escalation in competition enforcement following the TCCT’s Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses, which took effect on March 25, 2026. Platform operators, sellers, and related service providers should expect heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential investigations into practices already flagged under the March guidelines. Two Dedicated Enforcement Bodies The first new body is the digital platform subcommittee—formally the Subcommittee on Supervision, Monitoring, and Prevention of Trade Conduct in Digital Platform Business. It is tasked with driving intensive oversight of digital platform businesses. It will coordinate with government agencies, the private sector, business operators, and other relevant stakeholders to supervise and prevent trade conduct that may affect competition, and to promote free and fair competition in the digital platform sector. The subcommittee will be composed of TCCT members and representatives from the Department of Internal Trade. The second body—the Subcommittee on Determining Guidelines and Action Plans Concerning Competition Conditions in Modern Wholesale and Retail Business—will study, analyze, and monitor market structure in modern wholesale and retail businesses, compile databases to analyze retail business concentration, assess impacts on small-scale operators, and propose supervisory measures for the retail sector. TCCT members will serve on the subcommittee alongside experts from government and private organizations, including the Office of Industrial Economics, the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion, the Thai SME Federation, and the Thai SME Council. Operational Impact for Industry Participants These subcommittees provide the TCCT with a focused mechanism to investigate various trade practices deemed unfair, and the TCCT has authority under the Trade Competition Act to issue cease-and-desist
Read More
July 6, 2026
Vietnam has introduced an official list of high-risk AI systems, triggering more stringent compliance obligations for developers, suppliers, and deployers operating in the country. On June 30, 2026, the prime minister issued Decision No. 33/2026/QD-TTg (Decision 33), which establishes the List of High-Risk AI Systems under the Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law) and Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142). Decision 33 takes effect on August 15, 2026. Decision 33 is significant because only AI systems included on the list will be subject to the heightened compliance obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems under the AI Law and Decree 142. These include, among others, local presence requirements for foreign providers, mandatory conformity assessment before deployment, comprehensive risk management and data quality documentation, and strict liability for damages even when the provider is fully compliant. Decision 33 also specifies the applicable conformity assessment pathway for each listed system, indicating whether the system must undergo mandatory third-party conformity certification before being placed into use, or whether the provider may self-assess conformity or voluntarily engage a registered or recognized conformity assessment body. Which AI Systems Are Covered? Decision 33 identifies high-risk AI systems across six sectors—the key attributes of which are summarized below. Education: AI systems used for automated assessment, learner ranking, behavioral monitoring, or generating educational content from uncontrolled data sources. Ethnic affairs and religion: AI systems used to automatically score, classify, or rank applications for government ethnic policies; approve or reject regulatory applications; suspend benefits on suspicion of fraud; allocate budgets; or infer and classify individuals by ethnicity or religion for administrative purposes. Healthcare: AI-assisted surgical systems and autonomous AI-powered surgical robots. Banking: AI systems that autonomously conduct electronic banking transactions or make credit approval decisions. Judicial proceedings: Certain large-scale biometric identification systems used in public-interest civil proceedings. Transport: Thirty-one categories
Read More