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

September 21, 2022

Thailand Issues Guidelines on PDPA Consent and Notification Requirements

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has released separate guidelines for data controllers to follow in obtaining data subjects’ consent and notifying data subjects of required information (i.e., regarding collection, use, or disclosure of their personal data). By following the guidelines, data controllers can mitigate the risk of violating the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA).

The Guidelines on Obtaining Consent from the Data Subject according to the PDPA and the Guidelines on Notification of Purposes and Details upon the Collection of Personal Data from the Data Subject according to the PDPA were issued on September 7, 2022.

Consent Guidelines

The PDPC’s guidelines on obtaining consent list the requirements for consent to be considered valid. These requirements include stipulations on timing of requests, elements that need to be included in requests, and the nature of requests.

For instance, consent must be obtained before or at the time of obtaining personal data, and data subjects must be informed of both the purposes and details of the personal data handling, among other specific requirements. In turn, there must be a clear affirmative act of the data subject in giving consent.

Obtaining consent from minors is subject to more stringent requirements, and data controllers should implement appropriate identification and age-verification measures when collecting personal data about minors. The guidelines give two sets of requirements, depending on the age of the minor—between 10 and 20, and under 10. In general, with the older age group, parental consent is not required in all circumstances, while for the younger age group, parental consent is compulsory for giving consent on behalf of the minor.

For a person deemed to be “incompetent” or “quasi-incompetent,” consent must always be given by the legal guardian.

Notification Guidelines

The guidelines on notifying data subjects when collecting personal data set forth the two key principles of fairness and purpose limitation.

The fairness principle reflects the requirement to use language and terms that are clear and easy-to-understand while also notifying the data subject of adequate purposes, consequences, and other relevant information about data processing prior to or upon collection. The guidelines further clarify that the notification should include the legal basis which the data controller relies on when processing the personal data, and details on any cross-border transfer of personal data.

The purpose limitation principle is demonstrated when the notification, which is generally called a privacy policy, is clear, specific, and lawful.

The guidelines are flexible as to the format of the privacy policy, which can be written or verbal, and delivered via a variety of physical, telecommunications, or electronic means. The use of a prominent hyperlink to the policy is also acceptable.

When collecting personal data from sources other than the data subjects themselves, a data protection impact assessment should be made—particularly when a data subject is not aware or did not give consent, or when data controllers use new technology when processing a large volume of personal data.

Form of Consent Requests and Privacy Policies

If a data controller is subject to other specific laws under sectoral regulators (e.g., Bank of Thailand, Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Insurance Commission, etc.), that data controller must adopt the standard forms prescribed by the relevant law. If there is no prescribed standard form, data controllers can rely on the standard forms recommended by industry associations when they comply with the stipulations in the PDPC guidelines.

For more information from Tilleke & Gibbins’ PDPA team regarding these guidelines, or any aspect of compliance with PDPA requirements, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], or Tanyatorn Siriwanwattana at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
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