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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
Read More
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More