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

November 1, 2022

Thailand: Operationalising PDPA – Lawful Basis, Sensitive Personal Data, and Data Processing Safeguards

Subscribe to Updates
OneTrust DataGuidance

Background

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (‘PDPA’) is the country’s first unified data privacy legislation for personal data protection. Coming at a time when people around the world are increasingly aware of the risks and negative consequences of their personal data being compromised, the PDPA seeks to align with international standards, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) (‘GDPR’).

Prior to the enactment of the PDPA, privacy rights were recognised in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. Beyond this, the handling of personal data was governed by specific regulations for a handful of sectors, such as telecommunications, financial institutions, securities, and life sciences.

The PDPA was announced in the Royal Gazette of the Kingdom of Thailand on 27 May 2019, with an exemption for the enforcement of its requirements in relation to the collection, use, disclosure, and transfer (‘process’ or ‘processing’) of personal data, as well as its provisions on data subjects rights. After some delays caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years, the PDPA finally came fully into force on 1 June 2022.

Unlike most legislation in Thailand, the PDPA has an extraterritorial aspect whereby data controllers and data processors outside Thailand may be subject to the PDPA if the processing activities they undertake fall under the criteria prescribed in the PDPA.

The basics

The PDPA defines personal data as any data pertaining to a living natural person that enables the identification of that person, whether directly or indirectly, such as phone number, address, email address, or anything else that might enable the data subject’s identification. The PDPA applies to personal data in any form, whether digital or otherwise.

The PDPA introduces two main roles relating to the handling of others’ personal data: the data controller and the data processor. A data controller is a person or entity with power to make decisions regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. A data processor is a person or entity that collects, uses, or discloses personal data on behalf of, or under the instructions of, the data controller. The data controller carries significant liability and obligations, while the data processor’s obligations and liabilities are very limited in comparison. The data processor only needs to process personal data in accordance with instructions from the data controller, while the data controller has to establish a lawful basis for the processing of personal data (e.g. request consent from the data subject) and notify the relevant data subjects about the processing.

Lawful basis

Similar to the EU’s GDPR, the key obligation for the processing of personal data under the PDPA is the lawful basis requirement. Under the PDPA, the data controller must obtain consent for the processing of personal data from the data controller, unless the processing activity can rely on other lawful bases, such as when the personal information is for educational, research, or statistics collection purposes (provided appropriate personal data protection measures are in place), or when it helps to prevent danger to a person’s life, body, or health. Also, certain contractual obligations do not require further consent. For instance, an agreement to sell goods and deliver them to various locations or email addresses would not need consent for handling each separate delivery address or email.

In addition, there is an exemption covering the ‘legitimate interest’ of the data controller or a third party. When the data controller wishes to rely on legitimate interest for processing personal data, the data controller must balance its own or another party’s legitimate interest with the need to uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects.

When the processing of personal data needs to rely on consent as a lawful basis, the consent must be requested in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the PDPA. The consent must be requested before or at the time of collection of personal data, in writing or electronic form, and using clear and pain language. Moreover, it cannot be deceptive or cause the data subject to misunderstand.

Sensitive personal data

The PDPA also provides more protection to certain types of sensitive personal data by placing more restrictions on the processing of such sensitive personal data, which includes personal data pertaining to race, ethnic origin, political opinions, disability, creed, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual behaviour, and criminal records, as well as health data, trade union information, genetic data, and biometric data. This list is not fixed, as the regulator under the PDPA, the Personal Data Protection Committee (‘PDPC’), may further identify other types of sensitive personal data in the future.

To process sensitive personal data, the data controller must obtain explicit consent from the data subject, unless the processing activity can rely on other lawful bases. The exemptions for the explicit consent requirement or other lawful bases that the data controller could rely on are very limited; they are not the same as the exemptions for the consent requirement for general personal data. Examples of the explicit consent exemption include that the processing of sensitive personal data is:

  • conducted to prevent danger to a person’s life, body, or health;
  • necessary for the establishment, compliance, exercise, or defence of legal claims; or
  • necessary for compliance with a law to achieve the purposes with respect to specific matters, including labour protection.

Appropriate safeguards for processing data

The PDPA also prescribes obligations for the data controller to comply with, when processing personal data. Their first obligation is to ensure that, throughout its processing, the personal data remains correct, up-to-date, complete, and not misleading. In terms of security and maintenance, the data controller must implement suitable measures to prevent the loss, unauthorised access, alteration, or disclosure of personal data. These measures must be reviewed whenever necessary, such as after the implementation of technological developments. The data must be recorded in a form – either written or electronic – that can be inspected by the data subject or an authorised party. When the storage period expires, the personal data is no longer relevant or exceeds the scope of necessity, or the consent is withdrawn, the data controller is also responsible for seeing that the personal data is erased.

When a data controller discloses or shares personal data with other persons, it must also implement measures to prevent unauthorised use and disclosure. If the data controller engages a data processor to do this upon its instructions, a data processing agreement must also be in place to ensure that the data processor will comply with the PDPA and the data controller’s instructions.

Furthermore, when personal data is to be transferred overseas, the data controller must ensure that the destination country has adequate personal data protection standards. If these standards are not adequate, the data controller may need to apply additional safeguards to personal data when it is transferred to the foreign country.

Conclusion and outlook

Some of the PDPA’s many new requirements and rules for the processing of personal data will become more precise with further clarifications from the PDPC. This process may affect data controllers and data processors – both abroad and in Thailand – and bring new understandings of how best to comply with the law. Business operators in Thailand and outside the country therefore need to stay informed about the enforcement of the PDPA and be prepared to adjust their compliance strategies accordingly.

Despite the challenges of adjusting to new regulatory requirements, businesses will likely find that the PDPA enables them to conduct their personal data-related operations more smoothly and according to internationally accepted standards.

 

This article was first published by OneTrust DataGuidance as part four of their “Operationalising PDPA” series. To view the original and browse other articles in the series, please visit the OneTrust DataGuidance website.

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