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​ 

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