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

February 11, 2021

Personal Data Protection and Cybersecurity Laws to Encourage Thailand’s Digital Transformation

Subscribe to Updates

After approximately a decade drafting general personal data protection laws and formulating a regime to protect personal data and privacy rights, Thailand finally issued the country’s first unified personal data protection legislation in 2019.

The public was surprised when the draft Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) was published for the final round of hearings. The draft PDPA largely adopted the preeminent personal data protection standards as expressed in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The government expressed its objective to enhance personal data protection standards in Thailand to meet international standards, which would permit cross border transfers of personal data to Thailand, without any material limitations.

The PDPA, which was finally published in the Government Gazette in May 2019, also established a new independent regulator, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), tasked with enforcing the PDPA. All members of the commission must possess the qualifications required by the PDPA.

The PDPA was enacted with a grace period of one year for the requirements relating to the processing of personal data—which would provide businesses with sufficient time to adjust their practices to ensure compliance with the new requirements. It is a significant undertaking for businesses to adjust from having no general law on data protection to being required to meet high international data protection standards comparable to those in the GDPR.

GPDR concepts that were incorporated into the PDPA include (1) purpose limitation, (2) transparency, (3) lawfulness and fairness, and (4) data minimization. When collecting personal data, data controllers are required to establish a lawful basis to allow for such collection and processing of personal data. The lawful bases for general personal data are also similar to those under the GDPR, with concepts such as contractual necessity, legal obligation, legitimate interest, vital interest, and consent. Special types of personal data, such as health data and biometric data, will be subject to more stringent requirements under the PDPA. Data breach notification requirements are also imposed by the PDPA, and this is one of the obligations that data controllers are expected to meet.

The PDPA also recognizes the concept of extraterritorial effect, which is not common in Thailand. This raises the possibility that overseas data controllers could also be subject to the PDPA’s requirements in respect to their processing activities involving the personal data of data subjects in Thailand. Certain types of overseas data controllers and data processors are also required to appoint a local representative in Thailand without any limitation of liability in respect to the conduct of the overseas data controller or data processor.

In early May 2020, shortly before the PDPA grace period was scheduled to conclude, Thailand found itself embroiled in the global COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to what transpired in Brazil, the Thai government, led by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), decided to postpone the PDPA by issuing a royal decree. In essence, the decree meant that full implementation of the PDPA was further postponed to June 1, 2021, for almost all types of businesses (subject to the details specified in the royal decree).

To prepare for full enforcement of the PDPA, businesses should start the process of attaining a full understanding of the requirements of the PDPA if they haven’t already (see the unofficial English translation of the PDPA). The PDPA includes a number of principles that businesses can prepare to address, but the law does not fully detail or clarify all of the tasks that data controllers and data processors need to undertake in order to ensure full compliance with the PDPA, as the relevant clarifications will be issued in the form of supplemental regulations, notifications, or guidelines during the upcoming 12 months.

Due to the long delay in the PDPC’s selection process, the official appointment process for the PDPC only recently reached its final stage. This may impact the timeline for implementing supplemental regulations, without which businesses may be unsure about whether they need to appoint a DPO, how to establish incident management procedures to detect and report data breaches, and how to respond when data subjects make a request in accordance with their rights. Nevertheless, the Office of PDPC has announced its plan to hold public hearings on the first set of the sub-regulations on February 15–18.

Preparation of Industry Guidelines

While awaiting further developments relating to the PDPA and its supplemental regulations, certain business associations and industry groups are currently in the process of preparing their specific guidelines to ensure compliance with the PDPA, as well as collaborating with industry regulators such as the Bank of Thailand and the Office of Insurance Commission. A key concern for these organizations is the sharing of health data, which is subject to more stringent requirements than general personal data. Under the GDPR, it may be possible to rely on substantial public interest conditions for collecting and processing health data for insurance purposes, without the need to obtain explicit consent from the data subject (i.e., the insured). The PDPA, on the other hand, may not provide exemptions for businesses in the insurance industry or other related industries in regard to the processing of health data for insurance purposes. It is therefore imperative for industry regulators and associations to be actively involved in the development of the PDPA’s supplemental regulations and industry guidelines, so that the needs of the businesses are fully factored in when assessing the requirements to be included in these regulations.

How exactly the PDPA will develop remains to be seen, but it is anticipated that Thailand will look to and rely on personal data protection requirements set out under international standards—particularly those encompassed under the GDPR and personal data protection laws adopted in other countries—and use those principles to formulate and shape its own specific guidelines in the future.

Cybersecurity Act

Passed around the same time as the PDPA, the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019) also plays an important role in the ongoing digital transformation of Thai society. Upon the law’s enactment, there were no subordinate regulations stipulating specific requirements and obligations, especially in relation to the law’s provisions on prevention, protection, and management of cyber risks for government agencies or private organizations providing critical information infrastructure services, or “CII organizations.”

The National Cyber Security Commission recently issued a draft master plan and subordinate regulations for public hearing. These five draft regulations consist of (1) policies and plans on the cybersecurity, (2) a cybersecurity action, (3) management policies in connection with cybersecurity for state agencies and CII organizations, (4) a code of practice for the cybersecurity, and (5) a standard framework for cybersecurity.

Of these, items 3 through 5 have significant implications for state agencies and CII organizations, comparing to the first two draft regulations. The draft management policies in connection with cybersecurity for state agencies and CII organizations indicate that state agencies and CII organizations will have to observe principles of governance, risk, and compliance; prescribe the authority, role, and responsibility of their personnel; implement three lines of defense management; and provide a risk management plan with policies, standards, and guidelines.

Additionally, the draft code of practice for cybersecurity requires state agencies and CII organizations to have a cybersecurity verification procedure, cybersecurity risk assessment, and cybersecurity threat response plan.

Lastly, the draft standard framework for the cybersecurity sets out  guidelines covering (1) cybersecurity risk identification and assessment, (2) cybersecurity risk protection measures, (3) cybersecurity threat verification and monitoring measures, (4) follow-up measures for after a cybersecurity threat is detected, and (5) sustainability and restoration measures relating to cybersecurity threats.

The development of these cybersecurity provisions is still at an early stage and will require further approval from the relevant authorities. However, it is anticipated that Thailand will look to and rely on the principles of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology cybersecurity framework in order to set out internationally accepted guidelines and establish cybersecurity standards in Thailand.

Digital Transformation in Thailand

As access to and adoption of new technologies continues to expand at a rapid pace in Thailand, the PDPA and Cybersecurity Act provide important structure to guide businesses, regulators, and individuals in these technological developments. Moreover, these legal frameworks set a solid basis for sustainable, standards-based growth that responds to the unique needs and challenges of today’s technological landscape. While certain aspects of the laws’ implementation are still being clarified, both pieces of legislation have an important role in both the short- and long-term success of Thailand’s technological advancement.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More