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 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More