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 28, 2024
Recently, Vietnam has witnessed a dramatic increase in cyber fraud, causing significant financial losses and posing a grave threat to both Vietnamese and foreign entities. With the increasing reliance on digital technology and the widespread adoption of online platforms, the country has become fertile ground for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities and conduct various fraudulent activities. This article aims to present an overview of addressing cyber fraud in Vietnam and offers practical advice for businesses to safeguard themselves from becoming victims of such illicit activities.
March 27, 2024
Two notifications on the cross-border transfer of personal data, issued by Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), came into effect on March 24, 2024. These notifications, which we detailed in a previous update, set out the criteria governing the cross-border transfer of personal data offshore, specifically focusing on situations where appropriate personal data protection standards are in place. Of particular importance is the role of binding corporate rules (BCRs) in enabling the cross-border transfer of personal data among affiliated businesses or within the same group of undertakings. The implementation of BCRs requires a comprehensive review and approval process by the Office of the PDPC, strictly in accordance with the criteria set out in one of the two notifications. With the notifications now fully enforceable, the Office of the PDPC has begun accepting BCRs for review. Data controllers and data processors intending to adopt BCRs as a means for transferring data to offshore affiliates or group companies must initiate the BCR submission process promptly. Failure to comply with PDPA requirements concerning the cross-border transfer of personal data could result in substantial penalties. Organizations involved in cross-border personal data transfers should be proactive in complying with the prescribed criteria to avoid these regulatory penalties and maintain the data protection standards mandated by the PDPA. For more information on these cross-border personal data transfer regulations, or on any aspect of complying with Thailand’s data protection laws, please contact Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], or Wilin Somya at [email protected].
March 27, 2024
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has opened a public comment period on their consultation paper titled “Criteria for Supervising Virtual Banks” from March 19, 2024, to April 17, 2024. The consultation paper reveals that the BOT intends to apply traditional commercial bank supervisory standards to virtual banks. However, the BOT also explains that the wholly digital nature of the services offered by virtual banks necessitates additional regulatory supervision. Additional Supervisory Criteria for Virtual Banks Financial business group: If a virtual bank is within the same financial business group as other financial institutions, its parent company must structure the virtual bank to be under its own sole consolidated financial business group. After the virtual bank has undergone the “restricted phase” in its initial years of operation (see below), other financial institutions within the group are prohibited from extending credit to or engaging in transactions similar to lending activities with the virtual bank. Shareholding structure: If the increase in the financial institution system capital is higher than the actual capital injection resulting from the bank’s shareholding structure, the BOT aims to issue an additional regulation to supervise the capital of the virtual bank and financial institution system to prevent double counting. Operational risk: Virtual banks must not use a trademark or logo that bears resemblance to or implies association with other financial institutions or financial institution groups. Governance: Virtual banks must have at least one director and chief technology officer (CTO) with at least three years of experience in IT or digital service. Additionally, the CTO must work full-time for the virtual bank and may not be an employee of another legal entity. Restriction on related lending and related-party transactions: Virtual banks must obtain prior unanimous approval from their boards of directors before engaging in transactions with major shareholders or businesses
March 27, 2024
Last year, the government of Vietnam issued the Personal Data Protection Decree (PDPD), which took effect on July 1, 2023. The Department of Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention and Control (referred to as “A05”) under the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) is tasked with implementing and enforcing the requirements under the PDPD. While a decree on sanctioning provisions for noncompliance with the PDPD is still pending issuance, further movements from the MPS/A05 indicate that it aims to start conducting its first inspections into PDPD compliance. This is the first time that companies and government agencies have been officially questioned by the MPS about their compliance with the PDPD. The purposes of this inspection program are (1) to evaluate the compliance status of a group of selected companies and government agencies and to understand challenges in complying with the PDPD requirements; (2) to propose sanctions for noncompliance; and (3) to collect information and comments for the development of the upcoming Personal Data Protection Law—not to spot noncompliance with the PDPD specifically. This round of inspection includes a number of companies in 14 sectors (including e-commerce, aviation, telecom, banking and finance, intermediary payment, insurance, gaming, education, healthcare, real estate, data processing services, ride hailing, etc.). The companies targeted by this inspection program must: (1) submit a report on compliance to the MPS/A05 by May 30, 2024 (this report is different from the data protection impact assessment (DPIA)/transfer impact assessment (TIA) submission requirements); and (2) coordinate with the MPS/A05 on any further investigation actions from June to August 2024. The inspection results will be available by September 2024. Key information to be reported includes, among others: (1) a description of the activities and measures carried out to implement the PDPD (such as protecting data subjects’ rights, performing administrative procedures, preventing violations, etc.)