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

October 21, 2016

Online Privacy Policies in Thailand: Designing and Implementing an Effective Policy

Subscribe to Updates
Data Privacy Asia

The “Catch-all” Policy in Thailand

In many countries, it is mandatory for site operators to have a privacy policy in place. Catch-all privacy policies, whereby operators may collect, use, and share a wide range of users’ personal information, are widely used by site operators. They are designed to obtain broad agreement from users in respect to processing any personal data that is collected.

The validity and enforceability of catch-all privacy policies have been increasingly challenged. In a country like Thailand, which is still in the process of implementing its first general personal data protection law, questions commonly arise as to the degree to which an online privacy policy and online consent provided by users can be enforced under the present law (i.e., in the absence of a general personal data protection law).

Thailand’s Constitution generally recognizes the principle of privacy protection. It states that “a person shall have the right to privacy,” and “any act which wrongfully violates or affects the rights … or utilization of personal data in any way is prohibited.” In addition, a number of sector-specific statutes impose personal data protection requirements on parties operating within the telecommunications, securities, banking, and other industries.

What Is “Consent” in Thailand?

However, as Thailand lacks a general personal data protection law, there are no regulatory requirements on privacy policies or on obtaining individual consent from users to process personal data. This means that there are no requirements on specific forms of consent (e.g., in writing, express consent, required by Thai law, etc.). Therefore, certain types of implied consent in privacy policies may be acceptable and may constitute a privacy policy agreement with the users under Thai law.

In determining which types of implied consent are effectively sufficient, factors such as the timing of the consent provision, the person to whom consent is given, or the elements of fraud, deception, or misrepresentation, if any, are considered among other related circumstances.

An online privacy policy with an opt-in requirement (i.e., users are required to expressly click “I agree” after scrolling down to the end of the privacy policy terms during the process of site registration), arguably obtains a user’s consent to create an effective privacy policy agreement between the site operator and its users. However, it should be noted that a minor—generally deemed to be a person aged less than 20 years old—who enters into a contractual transaction without parental consent could make the transaction voidable.

Another key concern is the effectiveness of catch-all provisions, which could fall within the ambit of Thailand’s Unfair Contract Terms Act. If catch-all provisions are considered as unfair by the Thai courts (i.e., they impose an excessive burden which is more than a reasonable person could have anticipated), the Unfair Contract Terms Act enables the courts to intervene by voiding or limiting any unfair terms.

There are no Supreme Court decisions on unfair catch-all privacy policies, so it is difficult to ascertain to what degree the court will exercise its discretion when a privacy policy term is found to be unfair. To err on the side of caution, website privacy policies should provide clear and precise explanations of the specific types of information collected, the specific activities for which the information is being used and with whom the information is shared. 

The Importance of Review

Site operators should also keep their privacy policies up to date with current practices. Privacy policies are not one-sided agreements—operators can enforce a policy against users, and users can enforce against operators. Therefore, if an operator has an obligation under its privacy policy to notify affected data subjects about any material changes to personal data handling practices, and there has been a change in the handling practices (e.g., the location of the stored data or the third party vendor handling the collected data has changed), but the operator has failed to notify the affected data subjects, the operator could be seen as having broken the privacy policy. Although monetary damages arising from such a breach would most likely be minimal, the breach could possibly cause reputational damage to the site operators and/or owners.

Site operators should regularly review their privacy policies to ensure they are in line with current practices and do not dissuade users from interacting with their sites. An effective privacy policy can help mitigate exposure to liability in operating a site. An ineffective policy, on the other hand, could lead to costly legal actions and a tarnished reputation.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More
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