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, 2024
Tilleke & Gibbins’ Fintech Law in Southeast Asia provides fintech operators and service providers with an overview of relevant regulations across all of our full-service jurisdictions—Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Read More
June 21, 2024
On June 4, Thailand’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued a new notification on e-commerce business registration pursuant to the Commercial Registration Act B.E. 2499 (1956) (CRA), replacing a similar notification from 2010. The new notification (officially titled “Notification Re: Business Regulations that Commercial Operators Must Register and Businesses that Are Not Subject to the Commercial Registration Act, B.E. 2549 B.E. 2567”) took effect on June 5, 2024. While the previous notification required all individuals and legal entities engaged in regulated activities, such as selling goods or services online, to register their businesses with the local district office, the new notification effectively lifts this requirement for certain legal entities. The new notification clearly states that the CRA does not apply to regulated activities conducted by: Private limited companies, registered ordinary partnerships, and limited partnerships (i.e., legal entities under the Civil and Commercial Code); and Public limited companies (i.e., legal entities under the Public Limited Companies Act). Now that the new notification is in effect, limited companies and other specified legal entities are no longer required to register their e-commerce activities and obtain an e-commerce certificate from the MOC. E-commerce certificates previously issued to these legal entities are also voided by the new notification. Nevertheless, the requirement to register for direct marketing and obtain a direct marketing certificate under the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act B.E. 2545 (2002) remains in effect for any online sales or e-marketplace platforms administered by legal entities. Given the recent proactive enforcement of penalties for noncompliance with direct marketing registration requirements, we strongly advise business operators to assess whether their operations fall within the scope of direct marketing regulations and require a direct marketing certificate. For more information on e-commerce and direct marketing registration in Thailand, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon
Read More
June 19, 2024
Vietnam’s financial landscape is set to further transform on July 1, 2024, when the government’s long-awaited Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024 (“Decree 52”), will officially replace Decree No. 101/2012/ND-CP dated November 22, 2012, on non-cash payments (“Decree 101”). Decree 52 marks an important milestone by introducing the country’s first-ever legal definition of e-money. In addition, the decree brings forth new updates to regulations governing payment and intermediary payment services, laying the groundwork for more comprehensive guidance that will be provided in draft circulars now being developed by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). Non-Cash Payment Instruments The new definition of non-cash payment instruments under Decree 52 expands upon the previous definition in Decree 101. Notably, it clearly specifies the issuing entities as payment service providers, financial companies licensed to issue credit cards, and e-wallet service providers. Additionally, the new definition further clarifies that bank cards include debit, credit, and prepaid cards, and adds e-wallets to the list of non-cash payment instruments. Unlawful non-cash payment instruments are still defined as those that are not otherwise specified. E-Money Prior to Decree 52, the concept of e-money lacked a precise legal definition, despite its growing prevalence in forms like prepaid cards and e-wallets. The absence of a clear framework for e-money led to confusion with terms like “cryptpcurrency” and “virtual currency” and left significant ambiguity on whether e-money includes certain instruments, such as online game cards and mobile money. Decree 52 addresses this issue by clearly defining e-money as value in Vietnamese dong (VND) stored electronically and prepaid by customers to banks, foreign bank branches, and e-wallet service providers. It also specifically designates e-wallets and prepaid cards as types of storage mechanisms for e-money. Non-Cash Payment Services Decree 52 categorizes non-cash payment services into services with and without client payment
Read More
June 19, 2024
On June 14, 2024, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released a draft notification under the Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (PDPA), setting out criteria for how data controllers must delete, destroy, and de-identify personal data. According to the PDPA, a data subject can request that a data controller delete, destroy, or de-identify their personal data in any of the following circumstances: The personal data is no longer necessary for the purposes for which it was collected, used, or disclosed. The data subject has withdrawn their consent for the processing of the personal data, and no other lawful basis for processing remains. The data subject has objected to the processing of their personal data on grounds of legitimate interests or official tasks, the data controller has no other compelling grounds to refuse the request, and the data is not needed for legal claims. The data subject objects to the processing of their personal data for direct marketing purposes. The processing of personal data is unlawful. The draft stipulates that data controllers respond to a data subject’s request to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data immediately, and within 60 days of receiving the request. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request immediately, they must take interim measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose. This includes implementing measures such as preventing access to the data and applying appropriate security measures to protect the data from unauthorized use or disclosure. De-identification or Anonymization of Personal Data In certain circumstances, a data controller may opt to de-identify or anonymize personal data, rather than delete or destroy it. If doing so, the data controller must satisfy the following criteria: There must be a structured process to remove or eliminate all direct identifiers linked to the
Read More