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

August 4, 2026

Thailand Proposes Significant Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act

Subscribe to Updates

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 inserts a new definition of “government agency” to cover central government agencies, regional government agencies, local government agencies, state enterprises, public organizations, Parliament, courts, independent constitutional organizations, the Office of the Attorney General, public higher-education institutions, and independent state agencies. The proposed definition seeks to clarify which entities are considered “government agencies” and covered by the act.

Restructured Lawful Bases for Data Processing

The most significant proposed change for both government and private-sector organizations is the restructuring of the PDPA’s section 24, which currently prohibits data controllers from collecting personal data without consent, subject to certain exceptions framed as carveouts.

The proposed amendment would restructure section 24 to adopt a multiple-lawful-bases model aligned with the GDPR, and add more clarity on the public-task basis. Under the new framework, personal data processing would be lawful when carried out under at least one of the following bases:

  • Archival/research/statistical: For historical or archival purposes in the public interest, or for research or statistics with appropriate safeguards, as prescribed by the PDPC board.
  • Public task/official authority: Necessary for performing a public-interest mission or exercising official authority, including government disclosure obligations under the Official Information Act or other laws.
  • Vital interests: To prevent or suppress danger to a person’s life, body, or health.
  • Contractual necessity: Necessary for performing a contract with the data subject or for pre-contractual steps at the data subject’s request.
  • Legitimate interests: Necessary for the legitimate interests of the data controller or a third party, unless overridden by the data subject’s fundamental rights.
  • Legal obligation: Necessary for compliance with a legal obligation of the data controller
  • Consent: The data subject has given consent.

The most critical structural shift is that consent is repositioned from the default requirement to one of seven coequal lawful bases.

Next Steps

All organizations should monitor the public consultation process, which is open until August 15, 2026. If enacted, the bill will take effect the day after its publication in the Government Gazette.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 24, 2025
Thai authorities have escalated efforts to block unlawful cross-border digital asset business operators. On June 19, 2025, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) issued a notification empowering it to ban internet access to operations or services offered by digital asset business operators who lack licenses from the Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This ban, issued under the 2023 Royal Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crime, particularly aims to block Thai users’ access to services offered by unlicensed offshore digital asset providers via their own apps or websites or through public social media platforms. Compliance Requirements The notification requires internet service providers and social media platforms selected by MDES to immediately impose internet access restrictions on identified apps, websites, and IP addresses of illegal operators upon receiving MDES orders. Takedown Orders There are two tracks for competent officials at MDES to issue orders to operators: If the competent official is notified by the SEC of licensing noncompliance by a particular digital asset business operator, the competent official can issue a takedown order to the operator upon approval from the permanent secretary of MDES. If the competent official independently discovers, or receives a complaint from any third party other than the SEC, that a digital asset business operator may have violated licensing requirements, the competent official can ask the SEC to verify and confirm the relevant facts and noncompliance before seeking approval from the permanent secretary of MDES to issue the takedown order. Streamlined Enforcement Prior to this notification, the SEC could obtain takedown orders only from Thai courts under the 2007 Computer Crime Act to take down or block access to unlicensed digital asset platforms and apps. This was a relatively
Read More
July 24, 2025
Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security recently released a draft version of the 2025 Cybersecurity Law, which is intended to replace both the existing 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 Law on Network Information Security (LNIS). This consolidation reflects a broader effort by the Vietnamese government to streamline and centralize the legal framework governing cybersecurity, data protection, and information security to be under the sole authority of the Ministry of Public Security, moving away from the previous sharing of responsibility with the former Ministry of Information and Communications (which ceased operations earlier this year and merged with the Ministry of Science and Technology). This shift aims to eliminate overlaps and improve enforcement efficiency. The draft law is built upon the foundation of principles and provisions of both the 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 LNIS, while also introducing a wide range of amendments and new regulations. By merging the two laws, the government seeks to reduce legal fragmentation and ensure consistency in definitions, obligations, and enforcement mechanisms across related domains like data protection, IT system classification, and cybercrime prevention. The newly introduced amendments include enhanced obligations for service providers, stricter controls on information transmission, classification of IT systems, designation and protection of nationally important information systems, and sector-specific violations and compliance requirements. Highlights of the draft law are discussed below. Definition and Obligations of Service Providers The draft law clearly defines and significantly broadens the scope of entities considered “service providers” under its jurisdiction. This now includes businesses and individuals offering products or services in cyberspace, including both infrastructure and content online services, such as: Internet service providers (ISPs) and providers of telecommunications, hosting, servers, domain names, VPNs, proxy services, and cloud computing; Providers of social networks, websites, and online gaming; Financial institutions, banks, foreign bank branches in Vietnam, e-wallet
Read More
July 23, 2025
On July 4, 2025, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) issued two significant notifications that introduce new compliance requirements for ride-hailing platforms operating in the country. The notifications formally designate these platforms as high-impact digital services under section 18(3) of the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Businesses and impose a comprehensive set of additional operational obligations. These measures are designed to address regulatory gaps and enhance oversight of digital platforms providing public passenger vehicle or motorcycle ride-hailing services. First, the Notification on the Designation of Ride-Hailing Platforms under section 18(3) formally designates all ride-hailing platforms that have notified the ETDA of their operations as high-impact digital platform services under section 18(3) of the royal decree. Unlike high-risk marketplace platforms, which are named individually, any ride-hailing platform that has notified the ETDA of its operations is automatically subject to these new requirements. Next, the Notification on Additional Obligations for Ride-Hailing Platforms imposes further obligations on ride-hailing platforms, supplementing the general requirements under section 21 of the royal decree. These notifications will come into force 90 days from their publication in the Government Gazette. New Compliance Obligations The new regulatory framework introduces a range of operational, technical, and reporting requirements for ride-hailing platforms, particularly concerning the issues described below. Vehicle and Driver Compliance Operators must: Ensure that all vehicles used on the platform are registered as public vehicles in accordance with Department of Land Transport requirements Verify all drivers hold valid public driving licenses Collect service fees in compliance with applicable fare regulations under the Vehicle Law Digital Platform Features and User Verification Operators must implement robust digital platform features for both drivers and riders, including: Comprehensive identity verification and confirmation processes for drivers and riders, utilizing both face-to-face and non-face-to-face methods, including biometric and digital ID checks Real-time GPS
Read More