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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More