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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

February 20, 2025
Vietnam’s Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (Decree 147) was issued on November 9, 2024, and came into effect on December 25, 2024. Decree 147 represents a more stringently regulated digital landscape in Vietnam, creating challenges not only for offshore service providers offering cross-border services but also for onshore providers. As these new regulations impose stricter requirements, particularly in areas like content control, user authentication, data storage, and service license/notification, companies will need to adapt quickly to maintain compliance and minimize legal risks. The following are some of the key topics covered by Decree 147. [Note: Shortly after the issuance of Decree 147, Vietnam began a government restructuring process, with the aim of streamlining the government by consolidating and eliminating various ministries and agencies. Thus, the decree’s references to authorities such as the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) and the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) are subject to change.] 1. Cross-Border Information Provision Cross-border information provision is defined broadly as the provision by overseas organizations and individuals of information and online information content services for service users in Vietnam to access or use. This wide-ranging definition encompasses various types of cross-border services, including social network services, online game services, and app store services. However, cross-border provision of online game services remains prohibited under Decree 147 (see further details below). Offshore providers of services on a cross-border basis who lease data storage in Vietnam or meet a threshold of 100,000 or more total visits per month from Vietnam for six consecutive months (“regulated cross-border providers”) must adhere to stricter requirements. Specifically, they are required to, among other requirements: Notify the relevant authority of their contact information, including the location of the main server providing the service, within 60
February 17, 2025
Thailand’s draft Emergency Decree on Technology Crimes Suppression, which we covered in a client alert in January 2025 primarily addressed to telecom operators and financial institutions, is expected to have significant implications for a wide range of business operators.  The draft emergency decree has already been approved by the cabinet but may undergo further developments as it continues in the legislative process. In this article, we will highlight the material impacts of the draft emergency decree on overseas and local fintech operators. Expanded Definition of “Technology Crimes” The definition of “technology crimes” now includes the following acts of forgery or alteration: Forging or altering the identity of individuals and biometric characteristics by utilizing computer or communication systems or other electronic means to commit offenses. Forging or altering symbols, trademarks, or seals of groups (e.g., foundations, community enterprises) or juristic persons, including acts by juristic persons using individuals or juristic persons as nominal directors or shareholders, regardless of whether such individuals or legal juristic persons reside in Thailand. Forging or altering digital or online platforms, regardless of the platform’s location or legal status. Individuals who conspire, utilize, assist, or support the commission of these offenses will face the same penalties as the principal offender. Business Operator Definition The scope of “business operators” is now expanded to cover various fintech and digital asset operators beyond those under the Payment Systems Act (PSA). The draft emergency decree now includes the following operators, whether they are legally authorized or not: Business operators under the PSA and business operators who operate “as if” they are payment system operators Business operators under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses or business operators who operate “as if” they are digital asset business operators. Foreign exchange business operators. Disclosure and Exchange of Information Business operators must disclose
February 7, 2025
Vietnam’s political system is currently undergoing a significant reorganization to streamline government operations and improve efficiency. In this regard, Plan 141/KH-BCDTKNQ18, issued on December 6, 2024, provided guidelines on the restructuring of existing ministries, ministerial-level agencies, and government-affiliated agencies. Accordingly, the number of ministries is being reduced from 18 to 14 through mergers and consolidations and the establishment of a new Ministry of Ethnic and Religious Affairs. The number of ministerial-level agencies is being reduced to three, and government-affiliated agencies to five. Similar streamlining is happening at provincial levels. The newly consolidated state agencies will assume all functions, rights, and responsibilities of the merged entities, and will continue handling all ongoing matters previously handled by the former agencies. Some examples of these changes include the following: The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) will oversee telecommunications, IT applications, cybersecurity, e-transactions, and national digital transformation, which had previously been managed by the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC). MOST will also be responsible for issuing licenses related to these areas, such as licenses for G1 online game services and telecommunication services. The Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism will assume the responsibility of press management, previously under the MIC. The Ministry of Finance will assume state management functions related to investment, previously handled by the Ministry of Planning and Investment. Provincial Departments of Finance will issue Investment Registration Certificates and Enterprise Registration Certificates, a responsibility previously held by the Departments of Planning and Investment. The Ministry of Home Affairs will oversee labor and employment matters. Provincial Departments of Home Affairs will be authorized to issue work permits and will be the designated authorities for companies to register their internal labor regulations. Advantages for Businesses The restructuring aims to simplify regulations and expedite licensing processes. By reducing the number of agencies
February 6, 2025
The Thai government has proposed amendments to the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935), aiming to address the growing influence of online gambling activities and strengthen regulatory oversight. These amendments, if enacted, would introduce significant changes, particularly concerning online gambling operators, participants, and related advertising activities. The draft amendment is currently in the public hearing process, which is scheduled to conclude on February 14, 2025. Key highlights of the proposed amendments are discussed below. Online Gambling In the proposed amendment, “online gambling” refers to gambling via a computer system or electronic system either through the internet or through remote communication. Organizing, participating in, or engaging in any type of online gambling is prohibited unless authorized by the competent authority. This opens the door for the authorization of casino-style online gambling in Thailand. However, the proposed amendment also imposes strict penalties on both operators and gamblers engaging in unauthorized online gambling: Anyone who organizes unauthorized online gambling is subject to imprisonment for 7–12 years. This penalty also applies to those responsible for managing electronic systems or tools used to facilitate gambling, as well as anyone involved in advertising, promoting, or deceiving others, either directly or indirectly, to engage in online gambling without proper authorization. Any person who engages in unauthorized online gambling is subject to imprisonment for 1–3 years. Dealers, supervisors of gambling or gambling activities, runners conveying wagers or other betting information, and owners of premises who knowingly permit such unauthorized activities are subject to imprisonment for 5–7 years. Penalties for Unauthorized Offline Gambling Operators The proposed amendment revokes the previous penalties under the Gambling Act and proposes stronger penalties. Both the original penalties and the proposed replacements depend on the type of gambling activity under the law, which classifies gambling activities into two types—list A and list B. List