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

October 7, 2022

Thailand Opens Public Hearing Period on Measures for Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Data

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has opened a public hearing period on its draft notification regarding cross-border transfer of personal data. The public hearing is open through October 24. The notification, once issued, will supplement the principle of cross-border transfer of personal data outside of Thailand set out in the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

The notification sets out the following key matters:

Definitions

  • “Transfer of personal data” means any sending or transferring of personal data by a transferor of personal data, either by way of a physical transfer or a remote transfer through a computer system or an internet network to the recipient of the personal data. It does not include sending personal data through an intermediary by transiting between computer systems or internet networks, or any storing or retaining of personal data, either permanently or temporarily, by a cloud computing service provider, whereby the personal data transferor and the personal data recipient (1) are not making the order, (2) are not involved with any data selection or the content of the personal data sent and received through the computer systems or internet networks, or (3) have the purpose of entering into an agreement or any juristic act.
  • “Binding corporate rules” means the agreed terms or policy on personal data protection made between the personal data transferor and the personal data recipient to establish appropriate measures for safeguarding personal data within a group of corporations or companies.
  • “Standard contractual clauses” means the contractual terms made between the personal data transferor and the personal data recipient to establish appropriate measures for safeguarding personal data.
  • “Code of conduct” means a code that sets out the obligations of a personal data transferor and a personal data recipient outside of Thailand.
  • “Certification” means an undertaking in relation to safeguarding personal data, in order to establish appropriate personal data safeguarding measures.

Binding Corporate Rules

For cross-border transfers within a group of corporations or companies, binding corporate rules (BCRs) can be established and submitted to the PDPC for approval. The BCRs must adhere to the following minimum standards:

  • The effectiveness and legally binding nature of the BCRs apply to each company or entity within the group, including the data recipient, data processor, and data transferor, and the members belonging to the group, as well as their employees, staff, or persons related to the transfer or receipt of personal data within the group.
  • The BCRs must comply with Thai laws on personal data protection.
  • The BCRs must contain certification of data subject rights under the PDPA and sub-regulations.
  • The BCRs must contain measures on personal data protection in relation to personnel, processes, and security measures in accordance with the required technology standards for personal data protection.

Appropriate Safeguards

In accordance with section 29, paragraph 3, of the PDPA, a personal data transferor may transfer personal data to a recipient outside of Thailand when procuring appropriate safeguard measures by way of “standard contractual clauses,” “code of conduct,” or “certification.” Such appropriate safeguards must at least ensure the enforceability of the data subject’s rights and effective legal remedial actions, as provided in the annexes of the notification.

The appropriate safeguards must at least have the following:

  • Effectiveness and legal enforceability.
  • Compliance with Thai laws on personal data protection.
  • Certification of data subject rights under the PDPA and sub-regulations.
  • Measures on personal data protection in relation to personnel, process, and security measures in accordance with the required technology standards for personal data protection.

The standard contractual clauses must be filed with the PDPC. The appropriate safeguard measures must be enforceable under Thai law, and they must provide data subject rights under Thai law. Such rights must also be enforceable and provide remedial rights for data subjects as stipulated under Thai law.

The notification also sets out standard contractual clauses for controller-to-controller and controller-to-processor international transfers. The clauses primarily stipulate the obligations of the transferor and the recipient, recognize the enforceability of the PDPA provisions on personal data protection, and ensure the ability of data subjects to exercise their rights (in the form of third-party rights).

For more information from Tilleke & Gibbins’ data privacy team regarding the draft notification, or any aspect of compliance with PDPA requirements, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], or Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 10, 2025
For companies and individuals doing business in Vietnam, a common question is whether electronic signatures (e-signatures) are legally recognized under Vietnamese law. This matter is governed by Law No. 20/2023/QH15 on Electronic Transactions issued on June 22, 2023 (ETL 2023) and its guiding legal documents such as Decree No. 23/2025/ND-CP dated February 21, 2025, and Circular 06/2024/TT-BTTTT dated July 1, 2024 (Circular 06). Recognition of Validity of E-signatures in Vietnam As a general principle, the ETL 2023 confirms that an e-signature cannot be denied legal validity solely due to its electronic form. The law categorizes e-signatures into three types: Type 1: Specialized e-signatures for organizations Type 2: Public digital signatures for individuals and organizations Type 3: Specialized digital signatures for government agencies Among these types, only secure specialized e-signatures (a secure e-signature of type 1) and digital signatures (type 2) are explicitly granted the same legal validity as handwritten (wet) signatures. This distinction is particularly important in legal disputes and for transactions with government agencies. (For more details, please refer to our previous article.) Domestic e-signatures A domestic organization can choose to use secure specialized e-signatures (type 1) and/or digital signatures (type 2) while a Vietnam-based individual can choose digital signatures (type 2) for their transactions—particularly for those involving government agencies and transactions of high value and complexity which require stronger legal protection. Specialized e-signatures (type 1) can be created by the organizations themselves, and additionally must be “secure” to be explicitly recognized as having the same legal validity as handwritten signatures. For clarity, “secure” specialized e-signatures are those certified (granted a safety certificate) by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). (This was formerly the responsibility of the Ministry of Information and Communications, which was merged with MST under Vietnam’s 2025 administrative restructuring.) Digital signatures (type 2) are
Read More
July 9, 2025
On June 16, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 75/2025/QH15 amending and supplementing a number of articles of the 2012 Advertising Law, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. The amended Advertising Law was enacted to further refine the legal framework for advertising activities in the modern era. Online Advertising Under the amended Advertising Law, “online advertising” is defined to encompass not only advertising on electronic newspapers and electronic information pages (as provided under the 2012 Advertising Law) but also advertising on other electronic venues, including social media, online applications, and digital platforms with internet connection. The amended Advertising Law also imposes new requirements for online advertising, including: Identification signs: Advertisements must have clear identifiable signs in numbers, letters, symbols, images, or sounds to distinguish them from non-advertising content. Control features: For advertisements not in fixed areas, there must be easily recognizable features and icons that allow recipients to turn off the advertisement, notify the service provider of violating advertising content, and refuse to view inappropriate advertising content. Linked content: Content in the links embedded in advertisements must comply with the law. Advertising service providers and publishers must have measures to check and monitor the linked content. Advertising on social media: Organizations and enterprises providing social media services must offer users features to distinguish advertising content from other content. Signage for sponsored content: When advertising, users of social media services must use signs to differentiate advertising or sponsored content from other content they provide. In response to the above requirements for online advertising, the amended Advertising Law sets out obligations of advertisers, advertising service providers, advertising publishers, and advertising conveyors in relation to online advertising. Among these, it is notably the responsibility of individuals and organizations engaging in online advertising to prevent and remove violating
Read More
July 1, 2025
Now halfway through 2025, Thailand continues to advance in the realm of data privacy, with the ambitious goal of achieving zero data breaches. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), an independent government body established by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), is taking a more proactive approach, having published several rulings and orders to enhance data protection measures and clarify compliance expectations for businesses. Here is a look back at Thailand’s data privacy developments in the first half of the year. Strengthening Law Enforcement and New Guidance for Compliance Enforcement of existing data protection laws and regulations has taken a step forward this year. Some of the specific initiatives include: Increased enforcement by the PDPC. A key trend to watch from the first half of 2025 is the PDPC’s active enforcement of the PDPA as it intensifies oversight through compliance orders and public warnings against noncompliant organizations while ramping up efforts to prevent and halt the illegal trading of personal data by actively monitoring emerging societal issues. Call center scams and cyber fraud control. Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Orders from the Expert Committee. Several orders issued by the Expert Committee under the PDPA were announced in the first half of this year. These include directives for data controllers to take corrective actions to comply with the PDPA, as well as initiatives to raise awareness of data privacy within organizations, reflecting the regulator’s focus on promoting organizational awareness and compliance. A guideline report summarizing the Expert Committee’s decisions and orders was also published to serve as a reference for compliance. Public issue monitoring. The PDPC has been taking a more proactive approach
Read More
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