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 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More