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

April 2, 2026

Thailand Insurance Industry: AI and Privacy Regulatory Updates

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance.

What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment

The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers.

  • Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible.
  • Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors.
  • Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels.
  • DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale”—expressly including insurance—must appoint and register a data protection officer (DPO). The absence of a registered DPO or an outdated record of processing activities (ROPA) that fails to map agent-level data flows is now considered a high-risk compliance gap.

AI in Insurance: Draft PDPC Guidelines

The PDPC’s draft AI guidelines carry particular significance for insurers. The guidelines single out insurance risk assessments as an example of automated decision-making that produces legal effects or significantly affects data subjects. Organizations using AI-driven tools for underwriting, claims processing, or policy recommendations must implement a human-in-the-loop mechanism with actual authority to overturn AI decisions and must document processes for data subjects to request review. A data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is required for high-risk AI projects, including automated decision-making with legal effects and large-scale processing of sensitive data. Leakage of sensitive health or financial data through AI systems is categorized as high risk, requiring notification to both the PDPC and affected data subjects without delay.

Cross-Border Data Transfers

For multinational insurance groups, a binding corporate rules (BCRs) regulation became fully effective on February 17, 2026, providing a formal mechanism for intragroup cross-border transfers. Groups that already hold GDPR-approved BCRs may use a “fast-track” process by submitting their existing BCRs together with a Thailand addendum. Alternatively, Standard Contractual Clauses based on the ASEAN Model Contractual Clauses may be used for transfers to third-party reinsurers or service providers outside Thailand.

Practical Compliance Steps

Given the current regulatory landscape, insurers should consider the following immediate and near-term actions.

  • Governance and organization. Register a DPO with the PDPC if not already done, and ensure that the DPO has a direct reporting line to senior management with sufficient authority and resources to fulfill the role. Update the ROPA to comprehensively map all processing activities, including data flows through agents, brokers, and third-party administrators.
  • Consent architecture overhaul. Redesign application forms and digital onboarding flows so that marketing consent is presented as a separate, clearly labeled opt-in, entirely distinct from the consent required for the insurance contract itself. Ensure that refusal to consent to marketing does not affect the customer’s ability to obtain coverage.
  • Agent and vendor compliance program. Issue updated written instructions and security protocols to all insurance intermediaries classified as data processors. Review and strengthen data processing agreements with all third-party processors, including specific provisions for PDPA responsibilities, security standards, audit rights, breach notification obligations, and end-of-term data deletion or return. Implement a periodic audit cycle—rather than relying on static contractual commitments—to verify vendor compliance.
  • Privacy notice refresh. Prepare a concise summary privacy notice for distribution alongside insurance policies, covering all required elements under the OIC guidance. For digital tele-sales, implement prerecording disclosures informing customers that their voice or image data will be processed under the PDPA.
  • AI and automated decision-making readiness. Conduct DPIAs for all AI-driven underwriting, claims, and risk-assessment tools currently in use or under development. Establish a documented human-in-the-loop process for any automated decision that produces legal effects on policyholders, including a clear escalation path and a mechanism for data subjects to contest decisions.
  • Breach response preparedness. Ensure that internal incident response plans can meet the 72-hour notification deadline to the PDPC, with particular attention to AI-related data leakage scenarios.
  • Cross-border transfer mechanism. For multinational groups, evaluate whether BCR certification—including the fast-track route—or SCCs provide the most efficient path for data transfers to group entities or reinsurers abroad.

Outlook

Thailand’s insurance sector faces a significantly more demanding compliance environment as PDPA enforcement matures and OIC alignment tightens. The convergence of stricter consent rules, expanded liability for intermediary conduct, new AI governance expectations, and a workable cross-border transfer framework means that insurers must move from reactive compliance to proactive data governance. Organizations that address these areas systematically—beginning with DPO registration, ROPA updates, and consent architecture—will be best positioned to manage regulatory risk and maintain the trust of their policyholders.

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
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,
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
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