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

August 10, 2026

Thailand Launches Public Consultation on Draft Data-Sharing Law

Subscribe to Updates

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 require businesses in designated sectors to share customer data or business data with consumers or authorized third parties to promote consumer rights and competition. The relevant royal decree must specify at least the covered sectors, categories of data to be shared, eligible recipients, technical standards, exemptions, conditions for disclosure, and oversight mechanisms.
  • B2B: Data sharing between businesses is governed by freedom of contract and is subject to applicable laws, including data protection and competition laws. To promote trust, the government will issue a nonbinding framework on trusted data-sharing and a voluntary certification system for providers of data-sharing services, under which certified providers may display a recognized trust mark indicating compliance with prescribed standards.

Key Provisions of the Draft Law

The draft law addresses several additional areas of note:

  • Personal data protections. Where government data requested for sharing contains personal data, the data-holding agency must either deidentify the data, obtain data-subject consent, or confirm that a lawful basis for disclosure under the Personal Data Protection Act applies. In B2G emergencies, pseudonymized personal data may only be requested if nonpersonal data is demonstrably insufficient, and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee must be promptly notified.
  • Documentation and transparency. Government agencies and private organizations that receive and use government data in accordance with the law must submit details of the relevant data sharing agreement to the BDI within 15 days executing it. The BDI will make details of such agreements publicly available.
  • Data-Sharing Promotion Committee composition. The new Data-Sharing Promotion Committee mentioned above will be chaired by the Minister of Digital Economy and Society and comprises 10 ex-officio members and six expert members. The committee will issue regulations and policy recommendations, resolve disputes, oversee the voluntary certification of data-sharing service providers, and monitor implementation of the data-sharing regime.
  • Enforcement. Noncompliance is classified as a pinai (civil fine) offense. Civil fines apply to private entities that refuse to share data following a ministerial emergency order, and to designated business operators that fail to share consumer or business data as required by royal decree. No criminal penalties are imposed under the draft law.
  • Voluntary certification for data-sharing service providers. The draft law introduces a voluntary certification regime for data-sharing service providers, including data intermediaries, deidentification service providers, and secure access data service providers. Providers that meet prescribed standards may register with the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee and obtain a trust mark.

Impact on Private Sector

Companies operating in Thailand should be aware of several key implications:

  • Emergency data-sharing obligations. Private entities may be required by ministerial order to connect their systems and share data during declared national emergencies, with civil fines for noncompliance.
  • Sector-specific consumer data-sharing mandates. Businesses in sectors designated by royal decree—such as banking, insurance, e-commerce, or telecommunications—may be required to share customer data and business data at the request of consumers, comparable to “smart data” schemes in the UK and other jurisdictions. Such royal decrees may impose additional compliance requirements and designate a regulator for oversight and enforcement.
  • New opportunities for data-driven innovation. The new framework may enable qualifying businesses to access government data for research and development, creating opportunities to develop new products, services, and analytical capabilities.

Companies and other stakeholders should review the draft principles of the proposed data-sharing law and consider submitting comments during the public consultation period, which is open through August 31, 2026.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More
June 26, 2025
Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion,
Read More
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.
Read More
June 19, 2025
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices. The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025. Scope and Application The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct. The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching. Key Risk Management Principles The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows: Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management
Read More