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

September 16, 2022

Thailand Details Procedures for Personal Data Protection Complaints

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has issued a regulation establishing procedures for filing and processing data subjects’ complaints under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The Regulation Re: Complaint Filing, Rejection, Termination, Consideration, and the Period for the Consideration of the Complaint B.E. 2565 (2022) was issued in July 2022 and took effect on July 12, 2022.

The PDPA entitles data subjects to file complaints against data controllers, data processors, and employees or service providers of either whose operations fail to comply with the PDPA. This article lays out the various requirements and procedures for the filing and processing of such a complaint.

Complaint Submission

The body designated by the PDPA to be responsible for handling complaints and imposing administrative penalties is called the “Expert Committee.” Data subjects who would like to make a complaint can submit it to the Expert Committee directly at the Office of PDPC, send it to the office by post, or submit the complaint electronically.

The written or electronic complaint must use clear, plain, polite, and appropriate language, and must not give an impression of being directly or indirectly extorting or intimidating. The complaint must include at least the following information:

  • Name, address, and telephone number or email address of the complainant (or an authorized representative), together with identification card, passport, or other official identification document (plus a power of attorney if submitted by a representative);
  • Details and facts of the noncompliance with or violation of the PDPA;
  • Details of resulting damages or impact;
  • Supporting evidence (e.g., documentary evidence, physical evidence, witness statements); and
  • Action desired of the offender.

The complaint must include a statement certifying its veracity, and must be signed by the complainant or the authorized representative.

Complaint Consideration

When a complaint is submitted, the receiving official will verify that the complaint is complete and then issue a receipt to the complainant. The official will then conduct a preliminary examination of the complaint within 15 days before proposing it to the Expert Committee through the secretary-general of the PDPC for consideration. In their examination, the committee aims to determine:

  • whether the act indicated in the complaint constitutes noncompliance with or violation of the PDPA;
  • whether there are grounds for filing the complaint, and whether the complaint is substantive and reasonable;
  • whether the complaint is within the scope of the Expert Committee’s authority; and
  • whether the duties and power for considering the complaint are subject to any other law or authority.

The Expert Committee may reject a complaint—for example, if it does not relate to noncompliance with or violation of the PDPA, if it has complete information or supporting documents, if it duplicates a previously settled complaint, and so on. If the Expert Committee considers the complaint negotiable, it may ask the complainant and the offender to consider doing so.

In general, the Expert Committee will finish its consideration of the complaint within 90 days of its first meeting. With the approval of the PDPC, this period may be extended twice, for up to 60 days each time.

Outcomes

After concluding its examination, the Expert Committee will notify the complainant of the outcome as well as the relevant reasoning. If the complaint is rejected or dismissed because it falls within the authority of another law or authority, the complainant may submit the complaint to that authority, which will then deem the complaint’s date of receipt as being the date on which the Expert Committee received the complaint.

If the complaint is not negotiable, or is negotiable but the parties fail reach the settlement, the Expert Committee will consider the complaint and may impose administrative penalties on the data controller or processor in accordance with the PDPA.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More