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

July 31, 2023

Thailand Releases Draft Notification on Data Protection Officer Appointment

Subscribe to Updates

On July 13, 2023, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a draft notification on the requirements for appointment of a data protection officer (DPO).

Under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (PDPA), data controllers or data processors must appoint a DPO if:

  • The data controller or data processor is a state agency as prescribed by the PDPC (the list of state agencies was published in the Government Gazette on July 18, 2023);
  • The activities of the data controller or data processor in relation to the processing of the personal data require “regular monitoring of the personal data or the system,” by reason of “having large-scale personal data” as prescribed by the PDPC; or
  • The core activity of the data controller or data processor is related to the processing of special categories of personal data (e.g., health-related data, biometric data, etc.).

The draft notification’s criteria for determining whether a processing activity (1) requires regular monitoring of the personal data or the system, and (2) involves large-scale personal data are outlined below.

General Principles

When determining whether processing of personal data requires regular monitoring due to having large-scale personal data, it is likely that only the “core activity” of the data controller or data processor is to be taken into consideration. The term “core activity” denotes an essential and integral activity directly related to the primary operations of the data controller or data processor and does not include any supplementary business activities.

Regular Monitoring of Personal Data or Systems

According to the draft notification, activities related to processing personal data require regular monitoring of the personal data or the system if:

  • The core part of the data controller’s or data processor’s activities consists of tracking, monitoring, analyzing, or predicting the behavior, attitude, or profile of individuals; and
  • These activities generally involve the processing of personal data in a systemic manner on a usual or regular basis.

Examples of processing activities that require regular monitoring of the personal data or the system include:

  • Processing activities relating to membership cards, public transportation cards, electronic cards, or any other similar cards in which the card issuer or any other person can review card usage data;
  • Regular or routine processing activities involving verification of the status, history, or characteristics of customers or service recipients to assess various related risks before entering into a contract or providing services of the same nature, such as credit scoring, insurance premium evaluation, and fraud prevention, but not including operations with data from credit bureau companies and their members pursuant to Thailand’s laws concerning credit information business;
  • Processing of personal data for purposes of behavioral advertising;
  • Processing of customers’ or service users’ personal data by computer network system service providers or telecommunications operators; and
  • Processing of personal data for surveillance and security purposes.

Large-Scale Personal Data

When determining whether the core activities of a data controller or data processor constitute the large-scale processing of personal data, the following factors must be considered:

  • The number or proportion of data subjects whose personal data is processed, compared to the total number of potential data subjects;
  • The volume, type, or nature of personal data processed;
  • The duration or permanence of the processing of personal data for the purpose of carrying out the core activities of the data controller or data processor; and
  • The territorial scope or geographical area in connection with the processing activities.

Examples of the processing of large-scale personal data include:

  • Activities for the purpose of behavioral advertising, performed through search engines, or relating to social media with a wide range of users;
  • Processing of customers’ or service recipients’ personal data by life insurance companies, non-life insurance companies, or financial institutions pursuant to the respective law, but not including the handling of data by credit bureau companies and their members pursuant to the laws concerning credit information business operations; or
  • Processing of customers’ or service recipients’ personal data by a licensee holding a type 3 license under the Telecommunication Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001).

In addition, the business standards and relevant risks affecting the rights and freedom of the data subjects will also be taken into consideration.

Other Requirements for DPOs

DPOs may undertake other duties or tasks, provided that the data controller or data processor certifies with the Office of the PDPC that these duties do not conflict with or violate the legal obligations outlined in the PDPA, which is similar to the current requirement under Section 42 of the PDPA.

For more information on these DPO appointment requirements, or on any aspect of compliance with Thailand’s data protection regulations, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins’ data privacy team at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
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
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More