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​ 

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