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​ 

June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More