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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More