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

December 23, 2022

Thailand PDPC Notification on Data Breaches

Subscribe to Updates

On December 15, 2022, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) issued the Notification on the Criteria and Procedures for Handling Personal Data Breaches.

What Constitutes a “Data Breach”?

A “personal data breach” refers to a breach of security measures that causes unlawful or unauthorized loss, access, use, modification, or disclosure of personal data, resulting from an intentional, willful, negligent, accidental, unauthorized, or unlawful act, or an act related to computer crimes, cyber threats, mistakes or accidents, or any other act. The notification also classifies personal data breaches into three categories: confidentiality breach, integrity breach, and availability breach.

Upon being informed of an actual or suspected personal data breach, a data controller must take the following actions:

  • To the extent possible, assess the reliability of the information and investigate the facts related to the personal data breach, including all aspects concerning security measures, such as organizational measures, technical measures, and physical measures;
  • Conduct a data breach assessment to consider whether the personal data breach is likely to result in a risk to an individual’s rights and freedom;
  • Notify the Office of the PDPC, any affected data subjects, or both as required; and
  • Take necessary and appropriate action to prevent further consequences resulting from the personal data breach.

Breach Assessment

When conducting a data breach assessment, the following factors must be taken into account if there is a risk to an individual’s rights and freedom.

  • Nature and the type of data breach;
  • Nature, type, and volume of personal data involved;
  • Nature, type, and status of the affected data subject;
  • Severity of the consequences of the personal data breach for any affected data subjects, and the effectiveness of the measures taken to prevent the data breach;
  • Impact of the data breach on the operation of the business or on the public;
  • Storage systems of the personal data involved and the relevant security measures, including organizational measures, technical measures, and physical measures; and
  • Legal status of the data controller (i.e., individual or a corporate entity) and the scale and nature of its business.

Assessment Guidelines

The PDPC issued its Guidelines on Data Breach Assessments and Personal Data Breach Notifications (Version 1.0), dated December 15, 2022, which provides samples of risk assessments to determine whether the Office of the PDPC and/or the data subject has to be notified of a personal data breach. While the PDPC Notification on the Criteria and Procedures for Handling Personal Data Breaches is binding on data controllers, the guidelines are merely aimed at providing guidance to data controllers when assessing the risk associated with the personal data breach.

Notifying the Office of the PDPC

When a personal data breach occurs, the data controller must notify the Office of the PDPC “without delay”—that is, within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach—unless the personal data breach does not have any risk of affecting the rights and freedom of an individual (such as a lost USB drive with encrypted personal data or a temporary suspension of a call center system causing a brief service interruption). Although there is no mandated notification form, the notification must include the information required by the PDPC Notification mentioned above, such as nature of the breach, type and volume of records of personal data involved, the data protection officer’s contact information, possible impacts, and remedial actions.

It is also permissible to notify the Office of the PDPC of the breach by letter, in person, or via an electronic channel (to be further specified by the PDPC).

Notifying Data Subjects

Where the data breach has a high risk of affecting the rights and freedoms of an individual, the data controller must also notify the data subject without undue delay after becoming aware of the personal data breach. The information contained in the notification must be at least as required by the notification (e.g., nature of the breach, data protection officer’s contact information, possible impacts, remedial actions, and any other additional actions that the data subjects should undertake to prevent or control further damage, if any).

If it is not possible for the data controller to notify the affected data subjects individually in writing or via electronic means. Alternatively, the breach notification may be made by other means, such as a public notification.

Data Processor Obligations

Data processors must notify the data controller of the personal data breach without undue delay after becoming aware of the breach. The data controllers must set in its agreement with data processors a stipulation that the data processor is to notify the data controller within 72 hours of becoming aware of a personal data breach.

Punitive Damages and Possible Class Action Lawsuits

Under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019), data controllers and data processors can be ordered to pay actual damages plus punitive damages of up to two times the court-awarded actual damages. The amount of punitive damages depends on the severity of the breach, personal gain or benefit, and the financial status of the controller or processor. The court will also consider the steps the controller or processor took after the breach occurred, and whether the data subject contributed to the breach.

As a data breach, by its nature, may affect many individuals, class actions or mass litigation are possible. If a data subject can satisfy the court of the prerequisites, such as the number of members, the commonality and typicality of the matter, and his or her ability to adequately represent the class members, the data subject can request that the complaint represent other data subjects as well. A judgment rendered in a class action case could provide every class of member the right to claim without being initially involved as a party in the case. Alternatively, data subjects could potentially gather and jointly file complaints for damages. This potentially magnifies the possibility of litigation for data breach matters.

For more information about mitigating the risks posed by personal data breaches, responding to breaches, or any other aspect of data protection laws and regulations in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins data protection and cybersecurity team at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More