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​ 

June 26, 2025
Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) was passed by the National Assembly on June 26, 2025, and will enter into force on January 1, 2026. The PDPL introduces several new concepts, exemptions, and obligations in comparison with the current Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on personal data protection (PDPD), while other contents remain essentially the same. The relationship between the PDPD and the PDPL has not been clearly addressed; however, it is expected that the government will issue a new decree providing necessary guidance on certain requirements under the PDPL, and the PDPD will remain in effect until it is replaced by this new decree. Some key points of the new PDPL include the following: Personal data will be further defined by lists of basic personal data and sensitive personal data to be issued by the government. The consent-centric approach of the PDPD remains in place, along with additional exemptions for certain data processing activities. The requirements for the data processing impact assessment (DPIA) and transfer impact assessment (TIA) remain unchanged. However, there are new exemptions for the TIA, including for the processing and storing in the cloud of employee data, and when the data subject is the person sending its own data outside of Vietnam. Consent obtained under the PDPD remains valid under the PDPL. DPIAs and TIAs submitted under the PDPD are valid under the PDPL but may need to be updated to be in line with the requirements of the PDPL. Administrative fines depend on the type of violation. The fine for sale and purchase of personal data will be 10 times the revenue from the sale or VND 3 billion (about USD 115,000), whichever is higher. The fine for cross-border transfer violations is 5% of the violator’s revenue of the preceding year or VND 3 billion,
Read More
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.
Read More
June 19, 2025
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released draft guidelines establishing principles for managing artificial intelligence (AI) risks in the financial sector. The draft guidelines provide a structured framework for the responsible adoption of AI technologies. Financial service providers will be able to use the guidelines as a reference to appropriately manage their risks in a manner that aligns with internationally recognized best practices. The BOT is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines until June 30, 2025. Scope and Application The draft guidelines apply to all financial service providers, including financial institutions and special financial institutions under the Financial Institution Business Act, as well as payment providers under the Payment Systems Act. These guidelines supplement existing BOT risk management guidelines covering IT risk management, third-party risk management, data governance, and market conduct. The guidelines define AI systems as systems that mimic human intelligence, including machine learning, deep learning, generative AI (such as large language models), and agentic AI. This definition specifically excludes rule-based automation systems like robotic process automation and condition matching. Key Risk Management Principles The guidelines lay out two main principles in managing AI risk. Governance: Financial service providers should define and establish clear roles and responsibilities for their personnel and AI system supervision structures to uphold FEAT (fairness, ethics, accountability, and transparency) principles as follows: Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. Financial service providers should define roles and responsibilities for boards and executives on AI risk oversight. Responsibilities include establishing an AI system usage policy, designating personnel responsible for AI risk management, and building awareness of AI-related risk within the organization. AI system usage policy. The AI system usage policy should be aligned with organizational objectives, regulatory requirements, and FEAT principles. These policies should be reviewed regularly to respond to technological advancements and evolving risk profiles. Risk management
Read More
June 19, 2025
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has announced plans for increased enforcement of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses That Are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022). The ETDA outlined a comprehensive enforcement framework and review process during an online meeting with digital platform service operators on June 11, 2025. The ETDA’s enhanced enforcement approach includes systematic reviews of notification submissions, formal correction orders, and potential criminal penalties for noncompliance. Digital platform operators should immediately assess their current notification status and prepare for increased regulatory scrutiny. Review and Amendment of Previously Submitted Notification Data The ETDA will begin reviewing operation notification forms and annual reports submitted by digital platform service operators to assess each platform’s risk level and develop tailored regulatory obligations. In this comprehensive review process, the ETDA will: Examine the accuracy and completeness of submitted notification data; Request additional information as needed by phone or email; and Issue formal orders as needed requiring operators to correct or complete missing information. Operators who fail to comply with ETDA orders may face suspension of operations, revocation of their notification receipt, and public disclosure of their noncompliant status on the ETDA’s website. The ETDA will conduct follow-up workshops in July 2025 for operators whose data remains unclear or incomplete. Enforcement Framework and Penalties The ETDA outlined a three-tiered enforcement framework with escalating consequences for different types of violations, as follows: Failure to notify before commencing operations: Operators who begin services without proper notification may face criminal penalties under the Electronic Transactions Act, including up to one year of imprisonment, fines of up to THB 100,000 (approx. USD 3,070), or both. Additional consequences include suspension of operations and potential liability for company directors. Failure to correct or comply with official orders: Noncompliance with ETDA correction
Read More