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

July 20, 2026

Thailand Issues New Rules on Data Subject Access Requests

Subscribe to Updates

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 requests by allowing inspection, providing document copies, or granting electronic access. If a request is submitted electronically, the response should also be electronic where possible.
  • Grounds for refusal or limitation. Controllers may refuse requests where permitted by law or court order, where compliance would harm third-party rights (including personal data, trade secrets, or IP), or where the request is manifestly unfounded or unreasonably burdensome. Controllers must provide data subjects with the reason for refusal in writing, and the refusal must be recorded in the controller’s records.
  • Allowable fees. Electronic access without special recording or delivery costs should generally be free. Where fees are permitted, they must be reasonable, not exceed actual costs, and comply with the schedule attached to the notification. Fee details must be disclosed to data subjects in advance of any requests.
  • Recordkeeping. Controllers must retain records of requests and responses for at least two years. Electronic recordkeeping is permitted.
  • Interaction with other laws. Where other laws impose access-related duties, controllers must comply with those laws while remaining consistent with this notification’s procedures.

Next Steps

Data controllers being subject to the PDPA, both onshore and offshore, should assess their current data access request handling procedures against the notification’s requirements, including whether they offer the mandatory request channels and can meet the prescribed timelines. Key actions include:

  • Conducting a gap analysis of existing procedures against the new requirements.
  • Updating privacy notices and internal policies to clearly communicate request channels, fee schedules, and processing timelines.
  • Implementing or updating request management systems to track requests, verification status, deadlines, and record retention.
  • Training relevant personnel, particularly data protection officers, customer service teams, and legal and compliance staff, on the new timelines and procedures.
  • Preparing template responses, including refusal notices with documented reasons, correction requests, and abandonment notifications.

Given the short compliance window, organizations that have not yet established formal data access request procedures should begin implementation promptly.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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,
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More