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

May 12, 2021

Personal Data Protection Act: Royal Decree Extends Compliance Date to June 1, 2022

Subscribe to Updates

Further to the Thai Cabinet’s approval in principle of another one-year exemption from certain provisions under the Personal Data Protection Act (the PDPA), Royal Decree Re: the PDPA (No. 2) was issued on May 8, 2021, to implement the decision and definitively confirm the exemption to the end of May 2022.

The royal decree extends the original one-year exemption period (implemented by a previous royal decree, issued in May 2020) from May 2021 to the end of May 2022. As a result, the provisions relating to personal data protection, data subject rights, complaints, civil liabilities, penalties, and grandfather provisions, will not be effective in June 2021, but will instead take effect on June 1, 2022.

The extension is applicable to a wide-ranging list of operations including banking, commercial activities, communications and telecommunications, construction, digital, education, energy, finance, insurance, medical and public health, professional practices, real estate, tourism, and transportation (among others).

What does the extension mean for businesses?

  • The extension will give businesses more flexibility in preparing for compliance with the PDPA.
  • During the extension period, businesses should continue to monitor supplemental regulations that will be issued for public hearings before implementation. As with the principles recognized in the PDPA itself, which are materially influenced by international data protection standards (especially the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR), the government has publicly announced that the supplemental regulations will recognize and follow international standards of personal data protection (again, particularly those of the GDPR).
  • Overseas-established businesses may fall within the scope of the PDPA if they are offering goods or services to data subjects in Thailand (with or without an exchange of money or other valuable property) or monitoring the behavior of data subjects taking place in Thailand. This is sometimes referred to as “extraterritoriality,” and is similar to an internationally recognized principle of the GDPR.
  • Data controllers must still implement security measures for personal data protection, in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES). The MDES is expected to issue another notification on those standards in the near future, similar to the prior MDES notification dated July 17, 2020, which is due to expire at the end of this month. The requirements will likely follow the same principles (such as access control standards, user responsibilities, record monitoring, etc.).
  • Businesses that have not yet conducted their self-assessment for compliance with the PDPA should take this opportunity to begin the process, start identifying compliance gaps, and develop their mitigation plans for closing such gaps.

PDPA compliance assessment suggestions

When conducting PDPA compliance-related activities, we recommend that businesses (i.e. data controllers) avoid focusing too much on collecting consent from their individual customers if possible, as relying on consent as the lawful basis is vulnerable and can be withdrawn at any time. As the PDPA is still relatively new, a common misconception has arisen that consent is always required, but this is not the case. In fact there are several more durable lawful bases that data controllers can rely upon, such as contractual necessity, legitimate interest, and legal obligations, which should be made use of where possible.

In addition, when preparing a privacy notice for compliance with the PDPA notification requirements (under section 23 of the act), businesses should ensure that the notice provides “clear and sufficient information” so that the data subjects can understand and reasonably expect the implications that may arise as a result of providing their personal data.

It should be highlighted that, unlike other requirements, the concept and requirements for personal data about children (minors) differ from international standards as they have been localized for Thailand specifically to align with the provisions relating to minors under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code.

With regard to PDPA cross-border transfer requirements, international and local MNCs with affiliates and subsidiaries in multiple jurisdictions may consider preparing their binding corporate rules (or localizing them as appropriate) for cross-border transfers of personal data within their group of companies.

The Personal Data Protection Commission’s supplemental regulations will be issued in due course to give more clarity on the 72-hour data breach notification requirements and the data protection officer (DPO) required qualifications.

Lastly, the PDPA includes a grandfather provision that could enable businesses to continue to collect and use personal data within the scope of their original purpose after the PDPA becomes fully effective in 2022. Business should pay careful attention to those requirements and their implications for existing practices and processes when implementing their compliance plan.

Related Professionals

Industries

Aviation

Consumer Products

Energy

Insurance

Life Sciences

Technology

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
The drug registration process in Vietnam will be simplified, particularly for foreign applicants, following the recent issuance by Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) of a new circular that is expected to reduce administrative hurdles. Circular No. 32/2026/TT-BYT on the registration of drugs and medicinal ingredients (Circular 32) was issued on July 29, 2026, and will take effect on October 1, 2026, replacing Circular No. 12/2025/TT-BYT. Key provisions of the new circular are discussed below. Five-Year Data Exclusivity and Five-Month Public Disclosure Framework Circular 32 updates data protection guidelines by explicitly referencing Article 128 of the amended Intellectual Property Law, which sets out that new drugs supported by clinical trial data submitted for the first time will be granted a five-year data exclusivity period from the date of the initial marketing authorization (MA) approval. Subsequent applications that rely on the originator’s protected data will not be eligible for approval from the date of submission of the originator’s registration dossier until five years after the first MA is granted. Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulations, the regulatory authority must publicly disclose information on subsequent applications five months before the granting of MA, providing originator companies with an opportunity to exercise and enforce their intellectual property rights. Simplified Requirements for Foreign Legal Documents Circular 32 expands the circumstances under which legal documents issued by foreign authorities are exempt from consular legalization and authenticity verification requirements. Specifically, such documents may be exempt if the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) is able to verify their authenticity directly through official electronic means, including written confirmation or email correspondence sent directly to the MOH by the competent foreign authority, or publicly accessible English-language databases maintained by recognized foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, the new circular permits the submission of electronic notarized copies of legal documents
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
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More