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 1, 2019

The Reach and Liabilities of the Personal Data Protection Act

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post: Human Resources Watch

Earlier this year, Thailand enacted its Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which was published in the Government Gazette on 27 May 2019. Most parts of the PDPA will become effective one year after this, on 27 May 2020. As the PDPA will have broad impact across multiple aspects of most businesses—including their human resources operations—lawmakers provided this one-year period for those affected to prepare for compliance with the PDPA.

While the definitions and mechanics of the law in relation to HR operations were covered in a previous Human Resource Watch column (29 April 2019), this article will take a closer look at the civil, criminal, and administrative penalties applicable in the event of non-compliance with the PDPA.

It is important for employers to understand that these liabilities apply to them even if they outsource their company’s HR work. Some employers misunderstand that if they turn over their HR functions to an HR service provider, the employer will not have any liability under the PDPA. Indeed, even if HR functions are outsourced, the employer will still have the same liabilities under the PDPA if the HR service provider breaches the PDPA.

For instance, if an employer assigns an outsourced provider to manage the paying of wages and calculation of social security deductions, where the providers must collect, use or disclose the personal information of employees, both the employer and the HR service provider will be acting in roles defined by the PDPA. In this scenario, the employer would be considered a ‘data controller’, while the HR service provider would be considered a ‘data processor.’ Therefore, both the employer and the HR service provider will have potential liability under the PDPA.

If the employer or HR service provider violates a PDPA provision, such as selling employees’ personal information to a financial institution or other third party without the employees’ consent, the employer as data controller would not only be liable for paying compensation to the employees who own the personal information, but could also face criminal penalties and administrative liability under the PDPA. In addition, the HR service provider, as a data processor, could face civil liability.

The PDPA provides for three types of potential liability for violation of its provisions:

1. Civil Liability

Employers or HR service providers who are found to have violated the PDPA must pay compensation to the employees who own the personal information and who received damages from the violation, regardless of whether the violation was done intentionally or negligently, except where the offender can prove that the damages were caused by force majeure or the employees’ own actions. In addition, offenders who can prove that the violation was a result of their compliance with an order of a government officer exercising his or her duties under the law will not be liable. The compensation includes all necessary expenses associated with actual or likely damages, whether for purposes of prevention or mitigation.

In addition, the court is entitled to award punitive civil damages, up to two times the amount of actual damages.

The prescription period for claiming compensation under the PDPA is three years from the date that the employees who own the personal information became aware of the violation and the identity of the offenders, or ten years from the date on which the violation of the personal data took place.

2. Criminal liability

If an employer as data controller violates the PDPA by the use or disclosure of personal information without consent in a manner that is likely to cause the other person to suffer any damages, impair his or her reputation, or other reason, the offender will face imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to Baht 500,000, or both.

In addition, if the offender uses or discloses personal information in order to receive unlawful benefits (or secure benefits for others), the criminal penalties that the offender will face include imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to Baht 1 million, or both.

The criminal offence under the PDPA is a compoundable offence, which means that it can be settled by negotiation and agreement between the parties before a court issues a final judgment.

In a case where the offender is a juristic person and the offence occurs as a result of the order or act of any director, manager, or other person in a role of responsibility, those persons must be liable for the relevant penalties. Likewise, these persons can also be penalized for their omission of an instruction or act resulting in the commission of the offence by the juristic person.

3. Administrative liability

The PDPA also imposes administrative liability on any offender in the form of an administrative fine from Baht 500,000 to Baht 5 million, depending on the nature of the violation. The PDPA establishes an expert committee with the authority to order offenders to pay an administrative fine, issue an order for rectification, or issue a warning to the offender. In determining whether to impose an administrative fine, the expert committee will consider the severity of the circumstances of the offence, the size of the business of the data controller (e.g., an employer) or data processor (e.g., HR service provider or HR department), or other circumstances.

It is possible that specific classes of data controller could be exempted from the application of all or part of the provisions of the PDPA (in addition to the excepted activities, on which see the previous article on this topic). However, these exemptions would have to be made by royal decree.

As it stands now, though, exceptions for classes of person have not been promulgated, and employers should not expect that they will be automatically exempt from PDPA compliance. Recent news from Europe of companies being heavily fined for their violations of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (upon which much of the PDPA is based) underline the dangers of continuing to neglect the protection of personal data. With Thailand only months away from joining the EU and other jurisdictions around the world in implementing a robust data protection regime, businesses must ensure the compliance of all of their operations—including in-house or outsourced HR functions—to avoid such costly penalties.

 

This article was originally published in the Bangkok Post and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The original story can be viewed on the Bangkok Post website.

Related Professionals

Practices

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
Read More
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
December 19, 2025
On December 12, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Labor published a ministerial regulation prescribing the minimum and maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions. The regulation, which takes effect on January 1, 2026, sets a flat minimum base wage of THB 1,650 per month and a phased increase of the maximum base wage over the following six years, as outlined in the table below. Impact on Social Security Benefits Not only will monthly contributions increase as a result of the adjustment to the maximum wages used as a base for calculating social security contributions, but the maximum benefits available to insured persons will also be enhanced, as shown in the next table. Employer Obligations From January 1, 2026, employers must correctly withhold wages and remit social security contributions for both the employer’s and employees’ portions in compliance with the revised thresholds. Failure to comply may expose employers to penalties under the Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990). Employers should ensure that payroll systems are updated as necessary to reflect these changes to the wage ceiling used for social security contribution calculations.
Read More