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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More