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

Subscribe to 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 Professionals

Industries

Insurance

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 1, 2025
Now halfway through 2025, Thailand continues to advance in the realm of data privacy, with the ambitious goal of achieving zero data breaches. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), an independent government body established by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), is taking a more proactive approach, having published several rulings and orders to enhance data protection measures and clarify compliance expectations for businesses. Here is a look back at Thailand’s data privacy developments in the first half of the year. Strengthening Law Enforcement and New Guidance for Compliance Enforcement of existing data protection laws and regulations has taken a step forward this year. Some of the specific initiatives include: Increased enforcement by the PDPC. A key trend to watch from the first half of 2025 is the PDPC’s active enforcement of the PDPA as it intensifies oversight through compliance orders and public warnings against noncompliant organizations while ramping up efforts to prevent and halt the illegal trading of personal data by actively monitoring emerging societal issues. Call center scams and cyber fraud control. Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Orders from the Expert Committee. Several orders issued by the Expert Committee under the PDPA were announced in the first half of this year. These include directives for data controllers to take corrective actions to comply with the PDPA, as well as initiatives to raise awareness of data privacy within organizations, reflecting the regulator’s focus on promoting organizational awareness and compliance. A guideline report summarizing the Expert Committee’s decisions and orders was also published to serve as a reference for compliance. Public issue monitoring. The PDPC has been taking a more proactive approach
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More
June 26, 2025
Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion,
Read More
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.
Read More