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 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
Read More
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More