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 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
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