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 6, 2025

Thailand Releases Draft Guidelines on Government Cloud Adoption and Data Classification

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Digital Government Development Agency (DGA) has released drafts of two pivotal documents to guide Thai government agencies in adopting cloud technology and classifying data for cloud usage. These draft guidelines, open for public hearing through August 12, 2025, are part of the national “Go Cloud First” policy, which aims to accelerate digital transformation, improve efficiency, and ensure robust data security across the public sector. The new standards will have significant implications for both government agencies and cloud service providers operating in Thailand.

Highlights of the draft guidelines are presented below.

Government Cloud Usage Guidelines

  • Cloud-first transformation: All government agencies are directed to prioritize cloud solutions for new IT projects, in line with the cabinet’s “Go Cloud First” policy.
  • Cloud model selection: Agencies must assess their needs and select the most appropriate cloud deployment model—public, private, hybrid, or community cloud—based on the sensitivity of the data and operational requirements.
  • Service types: The guidelines provide criteria for choosing between Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS), emphasizing the importance of using standard, non-customized services where possible.
  • Cost management: Agencies are required to plan and separate cloud-related expenses, ensuring transparency and efficient budget allocation.
  • Cloud migration: The guidelines outline the steps for migrating to the cloud and highlight the role of cloud service providers in facilitating the process, including supporting innovation and enabling smooth exit strategies.
  • Procurement compliance: All cloud procurement must comply with public sector procurement laws and regulations. Only providers meeting government-mandated standards can be selected.
  • Security and shared responsibility: The guidelines clarify the division of security responsibilities between cloud providers and government agencies. While providers manage infrastructure security, agencies remain responsible for data, application, and access controls.
  • Legal framework: Agencies must comply with the Digital Government Administration Act, Cybersecurity Act, Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), and other relevant laws.

Cloud Data Classification Guidelines

  • Three-tier data classification: Government data is classified into three categories:
    1. Official data: Low-sensitivity data, suitable for public cloud storage.
    2. Protected data: Data that could cause harm if disclosed (e.g., tax, medical, or financial records), recommended to be stored in domestic public clouds with enhanced security.
    3. Highly protected data: Critical or top-secret data (e.g., national security information), must be stored in sovereign or state-controlled clouds within Thailand, with the highest security measures.
  • Data sovereignty and localization: The guidelines stress that all government data is recommended to be stored within Thailand to ensure compliance with local laws and maintain data sovereignty. Exceptions require DGA approval, except for highly protected data. The guidelines also distinguish between data at rest and data in transit or processing. While the focus of localization is on data at rest, data in transit (e.g., during transmission) or temporary processing outside Thailand could be permitted under certain technical and legal safeguards, provided no unauthorized access occurs. A localization exemption could be granted with special approval from the DGA.
  • Cross-border data transfers: Storing data outside Thailand is generally prohibited for sensitive information, with limited exceptions subject to DGA approval. The guidelines define “data that should be in Thailand” as data at rest (i.e., data stored on servers), and this does not include data in transit (data being transferred) or data being processed.
  • Risk assessment: Agencies must conduct risk assessments based on confidentiality, integrity, and availability to determine the appropriate level of security and cloud deployment.
  • Security controls: The guidelines mandate strict access controls, encryption, and compliance with international standards (e.g., ISO 27001) for sensitive data.
  • Legal compliance: The framework aligns with the Official Information Act, PDPA, Cybersecurity Act, and other national security regulations.

Implications and Action Steps for Government Agencies and Cloud Providers

Under the new guidelines, cloud adoption will be highly encouraged for government agencies. Any deviation from the cloud-first approach will need to be justified, with the decision-making process documented.

Government agencies who have implemented or are seeking to implement cloud technology will need to review and update their internal policies to align with the new guidelines, implement robust data classification and risk assessment processes for all digital services before migrating data to the cloud, and plan cloud migrations accordingly.

To be eligible for government contracts, cloud service providers will need to meet stringent security, localization, and compliance standards, and prepare for increased scrutiny regarding data residency, security certifications, and service transparency.

Outlook

These new guidelines represent a significant step forward in Thailand’s digital government strategy. All stakeholders should familiarize themselves with the requirements to ensure compliance, minimize risk, and support the secure and efficient adoption of cloud technology in the public sector.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More