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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require