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 10, 2025
For companies and individuals doing business in Vietnam, a common question is whether electronic signatures (e-signatures) are legally recognized under Vietnamese law. This matter is governed by Law No. 20/2023/QH15 on Electronic Transactions issued on June 22, 2023 (ETL 2023) and its guiding legal documents such as Decree No. 23/2025/ND-CP dated February 21, 2025, and Circular 06/2024/TT-BTTTT dated July 1, 2024 (Circular 06). Recognition of Validity of E-signatures in Vietnam As a general principle, the ETL 2023 confirms that an e-signature cannot be denied legal validity solely due to its electronic form. The law categorizes e-signatures into three types: Type 1: Specialized e-signatures for organizations Type 2: Public digital signatures for individuals and organizations Type 3: Specialized digital signatures for government agencies Among these types, only secure specialized e-signatures (a secure e-signature of type 1) and digital signatures (type 2) are explicitly granted the same legal validity as handwritten (wet) signatures. This distinction is particularly important in legal disputes and for transactions with government agencies. (For more details, please refer to our previous article.) Domestic e-signatures A domestic organization can choose to use secure specialized e-signatures (type 1) and/or digital signatures (type 2) while a Vietnam-based individual can choose digital signatures (type 2) for their transactions—particularly for those involving government agencies and transactions of high value and complexity which require stronger legal protection. Specialized e-signatures (type 1) can be created by the organizations themselves, and additionally must be “secure” to be explicitly recognized as having the same legal validity as handwritten signatures. For clarity, “secure” specialized e-signatures are those certified (granted a safety certificate) by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MST). (This was formerly the responsibility of the Ministry of Information and Communications, which was merged with MST under Vietnam’s 2025 administrative restructuring.) Digital signatures (type 2) are
Read More
July 9, 2025
On June 16, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 75/2025/QH15 amending and supplementing a number of articles of the 2012 Advertising Law, with an effective date of January 1, 2026. The amended Advertising Law was enacted to further refine the legal framework for advertising activities in the modern era. Online Advertising Under the amended Advertising Law, “online advertising” is defined to encompass not only advertising on electronic newspapers and electronic information pages (as provided under the 2012 Advertising Law) but also advertising on other electronic venues, including social media, online applications, and digital platforms with internet connection. The amended Advertising Law also imposes new requirements for online advertising, including: Identification signs: Advertisements must have clear identifiable signs in numbers, letters, symbols, images, or sounds to distinguish them from non-advertising content. Control features: For advertisements not in fixed areas, there must be easily recognizable features and icons that allow recipients to turn off the advertisement, notify the service provider of violating advertising content, and refuse to view inappropriate advertising content. Linked content: Content in the links embedded in advertisements must comply with the law. Advertising service providers and publishers must have measures to check and monitor the linked content. Advertising on social media: Organizations and enterprises providing social media services must offer users features to distinguish advertising content from other content. Signage for sponsored content: When advertising, users of social media services must use signs to differentiate advertising or sponsored content from other content they provide. In response to the above requirements for online advertising, the amended Advertising Law sets out obligations of advertisers, advertising service providers, advertising publishers, and advertising conveyors in relation to online advertising. Among these, it is notably the responsibility of individuals and organizations engaging in online advertising to prevent and remove violating
Read More
July 1, 2025
Now halfway through 2025, Thailand continues to advance in the realm of data privacy, with the ambitious goal of achieving zero data breaches. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), an independent government body established by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), is taking a more proactive approach, having published several rulings and orders to enhance data protection measures and clarify compliance expectations for businesses. Here is a look back at Thailand’s data privacy developments in the first half of the year. Strengthening Law Enforcement and New Guidance for Compliance Enforcement of existing data protection laws and regulations has taken a step forward this year. Some of the specific initiatives include: Increased enforcement by the PDPC. A key trend to watch from the first half of 2025 is the PDPC’s active enforcement of the PDPA as it intensifies oversight through compliance orders and public warnings against noncompliant organizations while ramping up efforts to prevent and halt the illegal trading of personal data by actively monitoring emerging societal issues. Call center scams and cyber fraud control. Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes to strengthen measures against technological crimes, particularly targeting call center scams and cyber fraud. Orders from the Expert Committee. Several orders issued by the Expert Committee under the PDPA were announced in the first half of this year. These include directives for data controllers to take corrective actions to comply with the PDPA, as well as initiatives to raise awareness of data privacy within organizations, reflecting the regulator’s focus on promoting organizational awareness and compliance. A guideline report summarizing the Expert Committee’s decisions and orders was also published to serve as a reference for compliance. Public issue monitoring. The PDPC has been taking a more proactive approach
Read More
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
Read More