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​ 

July 17, 2025
On July 9, 2025, Thailand issued a notification that introduces comprehensive operational requirements for digital platform service providers operating as goods marketplaces, effective December 31, 2025 (i.e., 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette). The regulation’s official name is Notification of the Electronic Transactions Committee Re: Other Actions for Digital Platform Service Operators in the Category of Marketplace for Goods with Specific Characteristics under Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses that are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022), B.E. 2568 (2025). Scope of Application The notification applies exclusively to goods marketplace operators formally designated by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), which on the same day designated 19 platforms that had previously notified the ETDA of their operations. The goods requiring enhanced oversight by these operators are limited to those regulated by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI). Development from Earlier Draft An earlier draft of the notification had included a requirement for offshore platforms to establish a local entity, but this requirement was removed from the final notification. Key Obligations Despite the removal of the local entity requirement, the notification imposes a range of additional obligations on designated goods marketplace operators: Transparency. Operators must implement robust transparency measures, including clear, accessible, and understandable disclosures to users in Thai. These disclosures must cover all relevant terms and conditions, comprehensive product information, and complaint management procedures. Operators must also submit an annual compliance report to the ETDA within 60 days after the end of their accounting period, including statistics on regulated goods. Business user registration and identity verification. Before permitting the sale or advertisement of regulated goods, operators must collect and verify business user information, including contact details, identification documents, registration
Read More
July 15, 2025
Thailand has established new safe harbor rules that require social media platforms to remove specified content within 24 hours of government notification. On July 5, 2025, the Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers was issued and took effect. This followed a hearing in May 2025 where only a select group of social media and online communication platform operators were invited to attend and comment on draft rules that could exempt social media platform operators from joint liability under the amended Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in cases involving victims of technological crimes. Safe Harbor Rules The notification stipulates procedures that must be followed in order to receive the protection of the safe harbor rules. Upon being notified by the Division of Prevention and Suppression of Cybercrime, Office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) of the presence of false or misleading information that may lead to the commission of a technological crime, social media service providers must immediately take down the specified content, with a maximum allowable turnaround time of 24 hours from the time of receiving the notification. Social media service providers are required to promptly report the outcome of each takedown to the MDES Division of Prevention and Suppression. This shift in Thailand’s regulatory approach to social media content moderation establishes clear government oversight mechanisms while providing platforms with liability protection for compliance. As the new rules took immediate effect, social media platforms need to ensure that they have adequate systems and processes in place to comply with the requirements.
Read More
July 11, 2025
Vietnam’s recent embrace of “regulatory sandboxes” reflects a deliberate policy choice to balance the need for robust oversight with an equally pressing imperative to catalyze innovation. A sandbox is a controlled, time-bound framework in which businesses may pilot emerging technologies, products, or business models under relaxed or tailor-made regulatory requirements, thereby allowing regulators to observe risks in real time while innovators validate commercial viability without bearing the full weight of the traditional compliance regime. By issuing sandbox regulations, the government of Vietnam is signaling its commitment to accelerating digital transformation, attracting investment, and developing a knowledge-based economy, all while safeguarding financial stability, consumer protection, and national security. This strategy is embodied in a suite of instruments that together establish sector-specific sandboxes: Decree No. 94/2025/ND-CP on the Regulatory Sandbox in the Banking Sector (Fintech Sandbox Decree), effective July 1, 2025. Law on Digital Technology Industry (DTI Law), effective January 1, 2026, and Law on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI Law), effective October 1, 2025. Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 on International Financial Centers (IFC Resolution), effective September 1, 2025. In addition, a draft resolution on the pilot implementation of the crypto-asset market (Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution) is expected to introduce a dedicated sandbox for crypto-asset service providers later this year, further underscoring Vietnam’s holistic, forward-looking approach to regulating emerging technologies. Below is a brief summary of all the regulatory sandboxes, who they are open for, and what businesses are attracted. Fintech Sandbox Decree Under the Fintech Sandbox Decree, besides credit institutions and foreign bank branches, fintech companies operating in Vietnam can apply for a Certificate of Sandbox Participation issued by the State Bank of Vietnam to operate any of the following services in Vietnam: Credit scoring: A solution applicable to information technology systems of credit institutions, branches of foreign banks, and fintech
Read More
July 11, 2025
On June 10, 2025, Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court accepted for consideration a pivotal lawsuit concerning the regulatory obligations of administrative agencies over internet-based television broadcasting services, commonly referred to as over-the-top (OTT) services. This court’s decision in the case may set important precedents for how OTT platforms are regulated, especially regarding consumer protections and advertising practices. Background A user of an OTT television application initiated legal action against the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and related officials, alleging that the lack of clear regulatory criteria and oversight allowed OTT operators to broadcast general television content while compelling users to view advertisements before and during programming. The plaintiff argued this constituted consumer exploitation and claimed that the responsible authorities neglected or delayed their statutory duties under the Act on the Organization to Assign Radio Frequencies and Regulate Broadcasting, Television, and Telecommunications Services B.E. 2553 (2010). Initially, the Central Administrative Court declined to accept the lawsuit. However, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court determined that the claim fell within its jurisdiction, noting that OTT television services—defined under section 4 of the governing act—are subject to the same regulatory framework as traditional television services, regardless of the transmission method (frequency, cable, internet, or other system). Implications for OTT Services The key implications for OTT services concern the following issues: Regulatory oversight: The court recognized that OTT television services are explicitly covered under Thailand’s broadcast regulatory regime. Regulatory agencies may be compelled to establish clear operational rules and oversight mechanisms for OTT providers. Consumer protections: The plaintiff’s claim that excessive or unavoidable in-program advertising constitutes consumer exploitation was acknowledged as a matter of public interest. This may prompt stricter advertising standards for OTT platforms. Licensing requirements: The case raises the prospect that OTT operators may be required to obtain licenses from the
Read More