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 17, 2025
On July 9, 2025, Thailand issued a notification that introduces comprehensive operational requirements for digital platform service providers operating as goods marketplaces, effective December 31, 2025 (i.e., 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette). The regulation’s official name is Notification of the Electronic Transactions Committee Re: Other Actions for Digital Platform Service Operators in the Category of Marketplace for Goods with Specific Characteristics under Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses that are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022), B.E. 2568 (2025). Scope of Application The notification applies exclusively to goods marketplace operators formally designated by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), which on the same day designated 19 platforms that had previously notified the ETDA of their operations. The goods requiring enhanced oversight by these operators are limited to those regulated by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI). Development from Earlier Draft An earlier draft of the notification had included a requirement for offshore platforms to establish a local entity, but this requirement was removed from the final notification. Key Obligations Despite the removal of the local entity requirement, the notification imposes a range of additional obligations on designated goods marketplace operators: Transparency. Operators must implement robust transparency measures, including clear, accessible, and understandable disclosures to users in Thai. These disclosures must cover all relevant terms and conditions, comprehensive product information, and complaint management procedures. Operators must also submit an annual compliance report to the ETDA within 60 days after the end of their accounting period, including statistics on regulated goods. Business user registration and identity verification. Before permitting the sale or advertisement of regulated goods, operators must collect and verify business user information, including contact details, identification documents, registration
Read More
July 15, 2025
Thailand has established new safe harbor rules that require social media platforms to remove specified content within 24 hours of government notification. On July 5, 2025, the Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers was issued and took effect. This followed a hearing in May 2025 where only a select group of social media and online communication platform operators were invited to attend and comment on draft rules that could exempt social media platform operators from joint liability under the amended Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in cases involving victims of technological crimes. Safe Harbor Rules The notification stipulates procedures that must be followed in order to receive the protection of the safe harbor rules. Upon being notified by the Division of Prevention and Suppression of Cybercrime, Office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) of the presence of false or misleading information that may lead to the commission of a technological crime, social media service providers must immediately take down the specified content, with a maximum allowable turnaround time of 24 hours from the time of receiving the notification. Social media service providers are required to promptly report the outcome of each takedown to the MDES Division of Prevention and Suppression. This shift in Thailand’s regulatory approach to social media content moderation establishes clear government oversight mechanisms while providing platforms with liability protection for compliance. As the new rules took immediate effect, social media platforms need to ensure that they have adequate systems and processes in place to comply with the requirements.
Read More
July 11, 2025
Vietnam’s recent embrace of “regulatory sandboxes” reflects a deliberate policy choice to balance the need for robust oversight with an equally pressing imperative to catalyze innovation. A sandbox is a controlled, time-bound framework in which businesses may pilot emerging technologies, products, or business models under relaxed or tailor-made regulatory requirements, thereby allowing regulators to observe risks in real time while innovators validate commercial viability without bearing the full weight of the traditional compliance regime. By issuing sandbox regulations, the government of Vietnam is signaling its commitment to accelerating digital transformation, attracting investment, and developing a knowledge-based economy, all while safeguarding financial stability, consumer protection, and national security. This strategy is embodied in a suite of instruments that together establish sector-specific sandboxes: Decree No. 94/2025/ND-CP on the Regulatory Sandbox in the Banking Sector (Fintech Sandbox Decree), effective July 1, 2025. Law on Digital Technology Industry (DTI Law), effective January 1, 2026, and Law on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI Law), effective October 1, 2025. Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 on International Financial Centers (IFC Resolution), effective September 1, 2025. In addition, a draft resolution on the pilot implementation of the crypto-asset market (Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution) is expected to introduce a dedicated sandbox for crypto-asset service providers later this year, further underscoring Vietnam’s holistic, forward-looking approach to regulating emerging technologies. Below is a brief summary of all the regulatory sandboxes, who they are open for, and what businesses are attracted. Fintech Sandbox Decree Under the Fintech Sandbox Decree, besides credit institutions and foreign bank branches, fintech companies operating in Vietnam can apply for a Certificate of Sandbox Participation issued by the State Bank of Vietnam to operate any of the following services in Vietnam: Credit scoring: A solution applicable to information technology systems of credit institutions, branches of foreign banks, and fintech
Read More
July 11, 2025
On June 10, 2025, Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court accepted for consideration a pivotal lawsuit concerning the regulatory obligations of administrative agencies over internet-based television broadcasting services, commonly referred to as over-the-top (OTT) services. This court’s decision in the case may set important precedents for how OTT platforms are regulated, especially regarding consumer protections and advertising practices. Background A user of an OTT television application initiated legal action against the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and related officials, alleging that the lack of clear regulatory criteria and oversight allowed OTT operators to broadcast general television content while compelling users to view advertisements before and during programming. The plaintiff argued this constituted consumer exploitation and claimed that the responsible authorities neglected or delayed their statutory duties under the Act on the Organization to Assign Radio Frequencies and Regulate Broadcasting, Television, and Telecommunications Services B.E. 2553 (2010). Initially, the Central Administrative Court declined to accept the lawsuit. However, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court determined that the claim fell within its jurisdiction, noting that OTT television services—defined under section 4 of the governing act—are subject to the same regulatory framework as traditional television services, regardless of the transmission method (frequency, cable, internet, or other system). Implications for OTT Services The key implications for OTT services concern the following issues: Regulatory oversight: The court recognized that OTT television services are explicitly covered under Thailand’s broadcast regulatory regime. Regulatory agencies may be compelled to establish clear operational rules and oversight mechanisms for OTT providers. Consumer protections: The plaintiff’s claim that excessive or unavoidable in-program advertising constitutes consumer exploitation was acknowledged as a matter of public interest. This may prompt stricter advertising standards for OTT platforms. Licensing requirements: The case raises the prospect that OTT operators may be required to obtain licenses from the
Read More