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

June 24, 2024

Thailand: Ruling Clarifies “Lawful Basis” for Processing Certain Personal Data

Subscribe to Updates

In March 2024, a Thai court of first instance handed down a decision in a personal data protection case against an insurance company in Thailand. The landmark ruling has important implications for the disclosure of special categories of personal data.

The case concerned an individual, acting as the plaintiff, who filed a claim against an insurance company, as a data controller, and its representatives, for collecting, using, and disclosing the results of the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level test, along with a photo of the plaintiff taking the test, without explicit consent, resulting in his insurance claim being rejected. The company also disclosed the data to the insured party, who is the plaintiff’s family member, causing the plaintiff to suffer reputational damage, discrimination, humiliation, and ill treatment.

Since results of a blood alcohol level test are considered a special category of personal data pursuant to section 26 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the plaintiff filed the claim with the criminal court, requesting that the criminal penalties under the PDPA and the Penal Code be imposed on the defendants, and that the defendants delete or destroy the plaintiff’s personal data. The insurance company argued that it had disclosed the test results and the photograph to the plaintiff’s family member—as the insured under the insurance agreement—for the purpose of informing the insured of the rejection of the insurance claim.

Considering these facts and reasons, the criminal court ruled that the processing of this special category of personal data was necessary for the defense of the insurance company’s legal claims pursuant to section 26(4) of the PDPA, and therefore, explicit consent was not required. As a result, the criminal court dismissed the case.

Key Takeaways

While this case was dismissed, it indicates that explicit consent is not the only legal basis for processing a special category of personal data, and data controllers are able to process personal data as long as there is a lawful purpose and an appropriate legal basis to achieve that purpose. This case also suggests that data subjects are now becoming more aware of their rights in regard to privacy and personal data, which could increase the likelihood of more cases being brought before the courts.

As this ruling was made by the court of first instance, it might be appealed.

For more information on the interpretation of the PDPA, or on any aspect of data compliance in Thailand, please contact Nop Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], or Wilin Somya at [email protected].

Related Professionals

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 23, 2025
On June 26, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Resolution No. 216/2025/QH15 to extend the duration of agricultural land use tax exemption through December 31, 2030. This policy extension reaffirms the government’s ongoing efforts to support the agricultural sector, ensure national food security, and promote rural development. Key Takeaways Tax Exemption Period Extended: The new resolution continues the full exemption from agricultural land use tax as stipulated under Resolution No. 55/2010/QH12, as amended in 2016 and 2020. The tax exemption, which was originally set to expire at the end of 2025, will now remain in effect until December 31, 2030. Scope of Exemption: The exemption applies to all types of land currently eligible under the existing legal framework for agricultural land use tax relief. This typically includes land used by households, cooperatives, and non-commercial organizations for agricultural production, aquaculture, salt-making, and reforestation. Effective Date: Resolution 216 will take effect on January 1, 2026. During the interim period, tax exemption remains valid under existing laws and resolutions until the end of 2025. Implementation Guidance to Follow: The government is tasked with issuing detailed guidance to ensure effective implementation of this extended exemption. Businesses, cooperatives, and individuals engaged in agricultural activities should monitor upcoming regulations and instructions from relevant ministries. Outlook Vietnam’s extension of agricultural land use tax exemption demonstrates a strong policy commitment to rural economic stability and environmental sustainability. For land users, the exemption represents meaningful financial relief that can be reinvested into modernizing farming techniques, improving land efficiency, or transitioning to sustainable practices. While the extension itself is automatic, it is recommended that agricultural land users and stakeholders review their land use documentation and tax profiles to ensure alignment with eligibility requirements. Future implementation regulations may also introduce new compliance obligations that should be tracked closely.
Read More
July 23, 2025
On July 4, 2025, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) issued two significant notifications that introduce new compliance requirements for ride-hailing platforms operating in the country. The notifications formally designate these platforms as high-impact digital services under section 18(3) of the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Businesses and impose a comprehensive set of additional operational obligations. These measures are designed to address regulatory gaps and enhance oversight of digital platforms providing public passenger vehicle or motorcycle ride-hailing services. First, the Notification on the Designation of Ride-Hailing Platforms under section 18(3) formally designates all ride-hailing platforms that have notified the ETDA of their operations as high-impact digital platform services under section 18(3) of the royal decree. Unlike high-risk marketplace platforms, which are named individually, any ride-hailing platform that has notified the ETDA of its operations is automatically subject to these new requirements. Next, the Notification on Additional Obligations for Ride-Hailing Platforms imposes further obligations on ride-hailing platforms, supplementing the general requirements under section 21 of the royal decree. These notifications will come into force 90 days from their publication in the Government Gazette. New Compliance Obligations The new regulatory framework introduces a range of operational, technical, and reporting requirements for ride-hailing platforms, particularly concerning the issues described below. Vehicle and Driver Compliance Operators must: Ensure that all vehicles used on the platform are registered as public vehicles in accordance with Department of Land Transport requirements Verify all drivers hold valid public driving licenses Collect service fees in compliance with applicable fare regulations under the Vehicle Law Digital Platform Features and User Verification Operators must implement robust digital platform features for both drivers and riders, including: Comprehensive identity verification and confirmation processes for drivers and riders, utilizing both face-to-face and non-face-to-face methods, including biometric and digital ID checks Real-time GPS
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 20, 2025
ベトナム政府は、貿易上の立場を強化し、米国との進行中の関税交渉におけるコミットメントを強化するための断固たる措置として、国内における知的財産権のエンフォースメント強化に全力で取り組んできた。その重要なきっかけとなったのは、首相が全省における模倣品の取締り強化のため、関係機関に対し、包括的なエンフォースメント措置を開始するよう要請する決定を下したことである。 Tilleke & Gibbinsは、これらの活動に積極的に関与し、ベトナムの市場管理局（Market Surveillance Authority）、税関、国境警察と緊密に連携しながら、計画策定、情報収集、そして現場でのエンフォースメントにおいて重要な役割を果たしてきた。 主要なオペレーションは、ハノイやホーチミン・シティを含む主要な商業拠点で実施された。ハノイでは、市場監視Team1と協力し、ハンザイ（Hang Giay）の大手卸売業者を検査した。検査の結果、大量の模倣品である香水が押収され、違法取引ネットワークにおける主要な供給業者が特定された。 ホーチミン・シティでは、サイゴン・スクエアを含む著名な市場における大規模な検査キャンペーンを支援した。情報収集を行い、当局は、模倣品であるブランド品の販売で悪名高い店舗や屋台を標的とした複数回の摘発を実施した。Tilleke & Gibbinsの専門家は、迅速かつ効果的な介入を確実に行うため、ロジスティクス支援とリアルタイム分析を行った。 ベトナムの都市部だけでなく、北部のおよび中部の重要な国境地帯にも活動が広げられた。Tilleke & Gibbinsは、主要な検問所で税関・国境警備隊と協力し、模倣品が含まれている疑いが高い貨物の検査を行った。これらの活動により、複数のコンテナに積まれた禁制品を押収した。 全国規模のキャンペーンには、保管・流通拠点として知られる複数の省における重点的な活動も含まれていた。バクザン省（Bac Giang）、ダナン省（Da Nang）、ハイフォン省（Hai Phong）、キエンザン省（Kien Giang）、ドンナイ省（Dong Nai）では、Tilleke & Gibbinsは、中規模から大規模の倉庫や流通センターへの組織的な摘発を支援した。これらの検査により、模倣品在庫が多数発見され、複数の施設の一時閉鎖と主要な犯人に対する法的措置につながった。 ベトナムが米国との関税交渉を続ける中、これらの注目を集めるエンフォースメント活動は明確なメッセージを発信している。すなわち、ベトナムは知的財産権の権利行使に真剣に取り組んでおり、長年の問題に対処するために具体的な行動を起こしている。Tilleke & Gibbinsのような民間パートナーの支援を受け、ベトナムは国際舞台において責任ある貿易パートナーとしての評判を高めている。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Vietnam Intensifies Crackdown on Counterfeits amid US Tariff Negotiations
Read More