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​ 

April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More