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

March 19, 2026

Thailand Opens Public Consultation on New PDPA Guidelines

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period to gather input for a forthcoming set of guidelines under the country’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). This initiative follows the PDPC’s issuance of guidelines on consent and notification requirements in September 2022.

The main consultation period, using an online questionnaire to gather feedback, runs until March 23, 2026. In addition, an interview-style online session for private-sector participants was held on March 17, and a two-day in-person event will be held on April 1–2—this is already fully booked and  walk-ins will not be accepted, but the session will be livestreamed on the PDPC’s Facebook page.

The PDPC will use the public feedback to design draft guidelines that accurately reflect the operational realities of both public and private organizations, after which the guidelines will be shared with the public.

Consultation Scope

The PDPC has identified six priority areas for which upcoming guidance may be issued:

  • Legal bases for processing: The online questionnaire assesses respondents’ understanding of consent requirements and seeks views on priority issues, such as explanations of the legal bases and considerations for selecting an appropriate legal basis depending on the nature of the processing activity.
  • Security measures and data breach notification: The questionnaire examines respondents’ understanding of data breach reporting and security measure obligations. Topics proposed for inclusion in the guidelines include data breach prevention measures, incident response plans, risk assessment methods, and reporting procedures.
  • Data protection officers: Respondents are invited to share their expectations regarding the DPO’s role and their experiences in contacting a DPO. The survey also asks respondents to identify priority issues, such as response timeframes for data subject requests and complaint procedures.
  • Marketing and direct marketing: The online questionnaire seeks input on preferred topics for guidance, including individuals’ rights to refuse marketing communications, mechanisms for withdrawing consent, and methods for individuals to verify how organizations use their personal data for marketing purposes.
  • Records of processing activities: Proposed topics include the concept and importance of ROPAs and how individuals may exercise their right to request information regarding the processing of their personal data.
  • National ID cards and CCTV for access control: Some questions concern the collection of personal data through CCTV and other data capture methods. Proposed topics for guidance include data minimization, retention practices, and security measures.

The PDPC is also seeking feedback on the preferred format of the guidelines, which may include summary handbooks, infographics, case studies, FAQs, or comparative tables.

Practical Implications

Although the guidelines will be nonbinding, they are expected to have a significant influence on regulatory expectations and enforcement practices. Organizations may find it difficult to deviate from the recommended approaches once issued, as the PDPC is likely to rely on the guidelines when reviewing PDPA compliance. The guidelines are also expected to shape industry norms and may prompt organizations to revisit existing compliance frameworks.

Action Items

Interested organizations should aim to submit feedback through the online questionnaire by March 23, 2026, to ensure the guidelines reflect operational realities and sector-specific challenges.

Upon issuance of the final guidelines, which current indications suggest will be developed over approximately eight months, organizations should review their data protection framework to assess whether updates are required.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
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