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​ 

April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
Read More