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 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible
Read More
June 25, 2026
On June 18, 2026, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published two notifications in the Government Gazette establishing Thailand’s first formal certification framework for personal data protection standards under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notifications, which took immediate effect, introduce a voluntary certification framework aimed at promoting accountability, strengthening organizational data protection governance, and aligning Thailand more closely with international frameworks that recognize certification as a key compliance tool. Certification Criteria The first notification sets out the assessment criteria for organizations seeking certification. Applicants must undergo an evaluation against a framework comprising four assessment categories, 10 focus areas, and 128 assessment criteria covering key elements of a privacy management program. These include: Organizational oversight and internal policies and procedures. Human resource development, including staff training and awareness programs. Clearly defined operational processes and procedures covering data subject rights, transparency obligations, records of processing activities, and lawful basis management, as well as contractual safeguards such as data-processing and data-sharing agreements and risk assessments, including Data Protection Impact Assessments. Technical measures encompassing data security controls and breach response capabilities Based on the assessment results, organizations may be awarded either a PDPA Compliance Certificate or a higher-level PDPA Certificate accompanied by a certification mark. Application and Assessment Process The second notification establishes the application and assessment process for obtaining certification. Eligible applicants include government agencies and private-sector entities that demonstrate sufficient privacy governance maturity and meet the prescribed eligibility requirements. Applicants must submit their applications along with supporting documentation for review. Upon receiving an application, the Office of the PDPC will conduct a detailed evaluation, which may include both documentary review and on-site inspections. Incomplete applications may be rejected, though applicants are typically given a limited period to correct deficiencies before a final decision
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More