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

January 8, 2026

Thailand Drafting Standards for Government-Engaged Cloud Service Providers

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) has proposed new standards that would require government agencies to select cloud services exclusively from a preapproved shortlist of providers. The draft Digital Government Standards re: Cloud Service Provider Standards aims to strengthen procurement confidence and reduce risks associated with selecting cloud service providers that do not meet the required standards. A public hearing period on these standards concluded on December 27, 2025. The DGA will now review submitted comments and consider revising the standards accordingly.

Shortlisted Cloud Service Provider Tiers

The draft standards establish three tiers of cloud service providers based on their assessed service capability levels, core qualifications, and certifications. The DGA sets qualification requirements for each tier, and it is at the discretion of each agency to select the tier of cloud service provider that best suits its operational needs, as follows:

  • Tier 1 cloud service providers are suitable for providing services involving disclosable official data.
  • Tier 2 cloud service providers are suitable for handling official data and protected data, such as personal data, which requires a high-security public cloud (e.g., virtual private cloud).
  • Tier 3 cloud service providers are suitable for providing services to agencies with specific regulatory and security requirements that handle highly protected data, such as the national security system. These providers must offer sovereign or hybrid cloud as stipulated by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.

All tiers of cloud service providers must be legal entities incorporated under Thai law and can be authorized distributors of offshore cloud service providers. However, each tier will be subject to different requirements, including infrastructure obligations. Government agencies are encouraged to select a cloud service provider appropriate for their intended use. For example, if a government agency intends to procure cloud services for operating applications that process personal data, it should select a tier 2 cloud service provider.

Shortlisting Procedure

To be endorsed for the shortlist, cloud service providers must conduct a self-assessment using the cloud service provider disclosure form and submit it to the regulatory authority for review.

The cloud service provider disclosure form includes the following sections:

  • Cloud service provider contact information: General contact information for the cloud service provider, such as address and telephone number.
  • Cloud service provider background: An overview of the cloud services offered, such as whether the provider offers public cloud services.
  • Legal and compliance: Information regarding compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
  • Certifications and standards compliance: Information on the cloud service provider’s compliance with various ISO standards, privacy law, and other necessary regulations required for operations.
  • Data control: Information regarding the location where customer or organizational data is stored, whether inside or outside Thailand. This also includes data retention periods when customers discontinue cloud services.
  • Provider performance: Information about the cloud provider’s performance, such as system availability, business continuity plan, and disaster recovery plan.
  • Service availability and business continuity: Information about service availability, the use of other services together with cloud services, and the cloud provider’s business continuity plan.
  • Service support: Information regarding notifications related to cloud service usage, assistance provided to cloud service users when issues arise, and procedures for data migration if necessary.
  • Security configurations: Information on the enforcement of security configuration requirements, adjustments to security settings in public cloud environments, and modifications required for customers with special needs.
  • Service elasticity: Information about temporary automatic resource scaling in cases where immediate changes to higher cloud usage tiers are not possible, as well as multi-path internet connections to support continuity in case of connectivity issues.

The regulatory authority will review and screen the information and supporting documents submitted by applicants to assess their suitability for providing cloud services to government agencies. The assessment will be based on key evaluation principles, such as measures and policies for managing and protecting users’ data, security standards and practices implemented by the service provider, and confirmation that the services comply with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements of Thailand.

In addition, the government may designate a central agency to negotiate key matters with the prescreened cloud service providers to obtain the most beneficial terms for government agencies. This may include negotiations on pricing and billing models, such as pricing structures (e.g., pay-as-you-go, reserved instances), volume discounts, and billing transparency.

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