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​ 

January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More
January 9, 2026
Vietnam has taken a decisive step into the global artificial intelligence regulatory landscape with the promulgation of the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law), adopted on December 10, 2025, and effective from March 1, 2026. As one of the earliest comprehensive, standalone AI statutes in Southeast Asia, the AI Law signals Vietnam’s ambition to position itself as both an innovation-friendly and governance-conscious AI market. In doing so, the legislature has also streamlined Vietnam’s AI regulatory architecture. The AI Law repeals most AI-related provisions previously embedded in the Law on Digital Technology Industry No. 71/2025/QH15, consolidating AI governance under a single, unified legal framework. This structural move underscores an intent to provide greater regulatory clarity and coherence for businesses operating across the AI value chain. Against this backdrop, the key question for AI developers, providers, deployers, and governance teams is how the new risk-based framework will shape compliance expectations, operational decisions, and governance design in practice. This article examines the new AI Law through that practical lens, focusing on what it means for AI businesses operating in or into Vietnam. Scope of Application The AI Law applies broadly to Vietnamese organizations and individuals, as well as foreign entities that participate in AI-related activities within Vietnam. The law expressly excludes AI activities conducted solely for national defense, security, and cryptography purposes. A defining feature of the AI Law is that it regulates by role, not by industry. It distinguishes between: Developers, who design, build, train, test, or fine-tune AI models and have direct control over the technical methods, training data, or model parameters; Providers, who place AI systems on the market or put them into use under their own names; Deployers, who use AI systems under their control in professional, commercial, or service-provision activities; Users, who interact with AI
Read More