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​ 

May 22, 2025
While digital technologies have significantly enhanced communication and information sharing, they have also created new opportunities for misuse, particularly for children, who are especially vulnerable to online abuse and exploitation. These risks are often difficult for parents and guardians to detect or prevent in a timely manner. To address these concerns, Thailand has drafted an amendment to the Criminal Code to introduce new provisions targeting offenses against children committed via online platforms. The objective is to close existing legal gaps and to provide more robust protections for children in the digital environment. The draft amendment focuses primarily on addressing online offenses against children and enhancing legal protections for children. The draft amendment proposed changes regarding the following issues: Jurisdiction and media misuse Expanding Thailand’s jurisdiction to cover sexual and liberty-related offenses committed against children outside the country. Adding offenses for misuse of media, including recording, publishing, or transmitting text, images, or sounds for unlawful or exploitative purposes. Offenses involving child exploitation Adding penalties for persuading, luring, or enticing children to engage in sexual or indecent conduct. Imposing harsher penalties for aggravated cases relating to child exploitation that result in serious harm or death. Adding penalties for sending or forwarding inappropriate sexual content to children with exploitative intent. Adding penalties for using threats involving sexual conduct to pressure or coerce victims. Removing ignorance of a child’s age as a possible defense for certain offenses (e.g., luring children or sending inappropriate content) when the child is under 13 years old. Special protections for vulnerable individuals Imposing harsher penalties for offenses committed against parents, persons under legal guardianship or parental authority, or individuals unable to protect themselves. Adding penalties to offenses such as luring children, sending inappropriate content, and cases involving serious harm or death. Child pornography Increasing liability for possession and
Read More
May 15, 2025
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) held an explanatory session on the draft principles and regulatory approaches of the country’s planned artificial intelligence (AI) law on May 2, 2025. This came after a lull of two years following the initial release of draft legislation on AI. In the session, the ETDA explained that the earlier drafts were modeled after the EU’s legal framework for AI, but given the evolving Thai legal and technological landscape, it is now necessary to revisit and refine the drafts to ensure they remain relevant and effective in the local context. To aid in this process, the ETDA will accept public comments on the draft principles of the AI law until June 9, 2025. Based on gap analysis and a comparative study of how different countries have addressed AI issues, the ETDA’s draft AI law principles are structured into five key areas. These are described below. 1. Risk-Based Requirements The draft principles outline a set of approaches that the legislation will take toward mitigating risk: Delegation of powers to enforcement agency or sectoral regulators The primary legislation will not directly specify a list of prohibited risks or high-risk types of AI. Instead, it will empower an enforcement agency or relevant sectoral regulators to determine and issue such lists. This approach allows regulators in each specific industry to assess the necessity of risk classifications within their respective sectors, based on the principle that sectoral regulators are best positioned to understand the specific risks in their domains. These regulators are expected to issue subordinate legislation in alignment with the overall framework. Meanwhile, the central enforcement agency will coordinate oversight across sectors and cover areas not under the jurisdiction of any specific regulator. Duties of high-risk AI providers Providers of AI deemed by the enforcement agency or sectoral
Read More
May 14, 2025
Following the amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in mid-April 2025, new measures were introduced by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) in a hearing session held on May 13, 2025, to establish shared liability between online social media platform operators and other in-scope operators for damages arising from technological crimes. Stakeholders are being invited to submit their comments on the proposed new provisions directly to the ETDA by May 20, 2025. The concept of the new measures for social media platform operators is that to be released from liability for damages arising from technological crimes, social media platform operators must demonstrate compliance with the relevant technological crime prevention standards and measures prescribed by their respective regulators (“safe harbor rules”). Safe Harbor Rules Under the principles of the proposed safe harbor rules, social media platform operators and the relevant service providers would be required to comply with the following obligations: Immediate takedown and suspension of dissemination: Disable access, remove the content from the system, or suspend the relevant service within 24 hours of receiving an official notification from the Cyber Crime Investigation Bureau’s Anti-Online Scam Operation Center (AOC) that a service or social media platform is disseminating content that is or may be used to commit or support technological crimes. Establishment of notification channels: Establish a system or channel to receive notifications from the AOC. User registration and identity verification: Require user registration (including identity verification and authentication) before allowing content to be posted, with sufficient information to identify the user. Suspending dissemination of suspect advertisements: Disable access to advertisements reasonably suspected of involving or potentially involving the commission of technology-related crimes. Reporting: Report on actions taken, including details like account owner information, IP address, email, or phone number used for account
Read More
May 5, 2025
On April 29, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 94/2025/ND-CP with regulations on a controlled “sandbox” for innovative fintech solutions in the banking sector (Decree 94). The decree aims to promote innovation, modernize banking, and enhance financial inclusion while assessing risks and benefits of fintech solutions in a controlled testing environment. Fintech Sandbox Currently, the fintech sandbox focuses on three specific areas: Credit scoring Open API data sharing Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending Eligible participants for the fintech sandbox include: Credit institutions and foreign bank branches (except for P2P lending) Fintech companies operating in Vietnam Cross-border supply by foreign providers is not included in the sandbox framework. Eligible participants are permitted to provide fintech solutions only within the scope specified in the Certificate of Sandbox Participation issued by the State Bank of Vietnam in consultation with other ministries. P2P lending companies face specific restrictions within the fintech sandbox, including prohibitions against: Providing security for customer loans Operating as a customer (i.e., P2P lender or borrower) Providing P2P lending solutions to pawn shops The maximum sandbox period is two years, with the possibility of extension as permitted by law. The outcomes of the fintech sandbox will serve as a practical basis for authorities to develop and refine future fintech regulations. It is worth noting that participation in the sandbox does not guarantee that participants will meet relevant business and investment conditions that may be stipulated in future regulations. Decree 94 will take effect on July 1, 2025, signaling that the Vietnamese government intends to take a proactive approach to fostering fintech development. Implications Parties interested in participating in the fintech sandbox should begin preparing now to be ready to apply for a Certificate of Sandbox Participation when the decree takes effect.
Read More