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​ 

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
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