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

November 15, 2023

Thailand Signals End to Relaxation of PDPA Enforcement

Subscribe to Updates

Four decisions from the Expert Committee under Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) indicate that there will no longer be any relaxation of PDPA enforcement.

The enforcement of Thailand’s seminal data protection law had been relaxed for more than a year when, on October 18, 2023, the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published the first decision made by the Expert Committee on the imposition of administrative measures against a company pursuant to authority granted to it under the Notification of the PDPC Re: Rules for the Consideration of the Imposition of Administrative Penalties by the Expert Committee B.E. 2565 (2022), which was one of the first subordinate regulations issued under the PDPA. Shortly thereafter, on October 19, October 25, and November 15, three additional Expert Committee decisions were published.

These three decisions made by the Expert Committee are summarized below.

October 18 Decision

The complainant in this case lodged a complaint with the Expert Committee alleging that an insurance company contacted him to offer the company’s products without his consent. The complaint further claimed that when the complainant requested the company to disclose how his personal data had been acquired and asked the company to stop contacting him through any channel, the company did not take any action on the requests.

The insurance company appeared to have obtained the personal data of the complainant from another source prior to the PDPA becoming fully effective (i.e., June 1, 2022). As the Expert Committee explained in its order, the company failed to comply with its obligations under the PDPA regarding the collection of personal data from another source, which requires consent as a legal basis; failed to comply with the grandfather provision by not publicizing opt-out procedures to enable the data subject to withdraw his consent easily; and did not grant the data subject the right to have his personal data rectified or deleted.

The Expert Committee ordered the insurance company to:

  1. Comply with its obligations under the PDPA regarding the collection of personal data from another source;
  2. Delete the personal data of the complainant;
  3. Take action to suppress damage, starting from the date of receiving the  order;
  4. Stipulate measures to prevent the occurrence of similar cases; and
  5. Set forth and implement guidelines for complying with the provisions of the PDPA on the right of access, right to rectification, obligation to implement a monitoring system for the deletion of personal data, and so on.

The Expert Committee also ordered the company to report to the Office of the PDPC on the outcome of the actions taken in relation to the five items above within 30 days of receiving the order.

October 19 Decision

The complainant in this case lodged a complaint with the Expert Committee alleging that a mobile banking application service provider did not allow him to give his consent freely in the application. The complainant requested that the service provider amend its consent request format and that he be allowed to withdraw the consent he had previously given to the service provider and its affiliated companies for accessing the application.

By the time the case came before the Expert Committee, the service provider had already amended its consent request format to be compliant with the requirements of the PDPA. Accordingly, the complainant wanted to withdraw his complaint; moreover, the service provider had already proceeded with the requests of the complainant. Considering these facts, the Expert Committee decided to reject the complaint.

October 25 Decision

In this case, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Expert Committee stating that as the former employee of a data controller he was entitled to a transportation card benefit following his employment with the data controller. The data controller sent an email informing the complainant that he could be issued a transportation card via an electronic system, with the condition that he must first provide his personal data in order to access the transportation card issuance system. Subsequently, the complainant received another email from the data controller reporting that his transportation card benefit had been suspended, and that he had accepted this suspension when he gave consent to the processing of personal data as required by the data controller. This was contrary to the complainant’s understanding that the consent was for the issuance of a transportation card only, rather than for the suspension of his rights.

The Expert Committee ordered that:

  1. The data controller must amend its consent request form to be consistent with the purposes notified to the data subjects;
  2. The consent must be freely given by the data subject;
  3. The consent must not be conditional; and
  4. The data controller must not rely on such consent to suspend other rights of the complainant.

Also, the data controller must notify the Office of the PDPC of the outcome of remedial actions pursuant to the above order or take any action to suppress damage within 30 days from the date of receiving the order.

November 15 Decision

The complainant in this case lodged a complaint with the Expert Committee stating that his name and an image of his medical license were acquired by another person who pretended to be a licensed healthcare professional, which resulted in service recipients and the public being misled and the complainant suffering damage to his reputation. The Expert Committee, however, stated that the facts of the case and the information provided by the complaint did not verify that the accused is a data controller who violated or failed to comply with the PDPA, and therefore, the Expert Committee was unable to make a determination on the complaint. Considering these facts, the Expert Committee decided to reject the complaint.

Takeaways

These cases indicate an end to the relaxation of Thailand’s enforcement of its PDPA. As data subjects gain more awareness of their rights over their personal data, more complaints are likely to be lodged with the Expert Committee if data subjects suspect that their personal data is not handled or processed properly by data controllers or data processors. Since the PDPA has been fully effective for over a year, the Expert Committee may be prepared to start taking more serious actions in imposing administrative fines and penalties. Organizations should thus take extra care in ensuring that they stay in compliance with the PDPA.

Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to monitor the development of the PDPA and provide updates as they emerge. If you have questions about the PDPA or any other aspect of data compliance in Thailand, please contact any member of the Tilleke & Gibbins PDPA team, including Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], Wilin Somya at [email protected], and Punyavee Koaysomboon at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.
Read More
March 27, 2026
Vietnam’s emerging governance framework for artificial intelligence (AI) is developing through a multi-layered structure comprising three components: Policy instruments setting national priorities for AI development; Regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI; and Technical standards and voluntary guidelines. Policy level. At policy level, the foundation for a strategic framework for AI development and governance was laid in 2021 by the National Strategy for Research, Development and Application of AI until 2030, aimed at strengthening the national AI ecosystem and positioning Vietnam as a regional AI innovation hub. Subsequently, resolution No.57-NQ/TW (2024) identified AI as a key driver of science, technology, innovation and national digital transformation. AI was also designated as a strategic technology under decision No.1131/QD-TTg (2025) listing priority technologies across sectors. Regulatory framework. At the legislative level, the new Law on Artificial Intelligence took effect on 1 March 2026, establishing the core regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI systems. Controlled testing for emerging AI technologies is implemented under the Law on Science, Technology and Innovation. The AI Law is expected to be further operationalised through implementing instruments, most notably a draft decree guiding the AI Law, and draft decision of the prime minister identifying high-risk AI systems (both published in February 2026). A decision establishing priority datasets for AI development is also anticipated. Compliance obligations may also arise under sectoral regulatory regimes, including data protection, cybersecurity, banking, consumer protection, e-commerce and intellectual property, particularly where AI systems are used in automated decision-making or data-driven services. Technical standards and non-binding guidelines. Vietnam’s AI governance framework is also supported by technical standards and voluntary guidelines. A key instrument is decision No.1290/QD-BKHCN (2024), providing guidelines for responsible research and development of AI systems, and represents Vietnam’s first national AI ethics code. The Ministry of Science and Technology
Read More
March 27, 2026
In response to the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and evolving global digital trends, Thailand has undertaken significant efforts to establish a comprehensive national policy framework aimed at fostering an AI ecosystem. This framework seeks to promote the responsible development and deployment of AI technology to enhance Thailand’s economic competitiveness and improve quality of life, with targeted implementation by 2027. In furtherance of this national AI policy, regulatory authorities have initiated efforts to develop and refine the applicable legal framework, including the drafting of Thailand’s first unified AI legislation. Pending the composing and enactment of such comprehensive legislation, sector-specific regulators have proactively issued guidelines applicable to regulated entities within their respective jurisdictions, including financial institutions, banks, insurance companies, securities and derivatives business operators, and digital asset service providers. Concurrently, cross-sectoral regulatory bodies, notably the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) and the National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA), have promulgated guidelines applicable to all business operators within their regulatory purview. While unified AI legislation has not been enacted, the design, development and use of AI in Thailand in various industries is still subject to existing sector-specific legislation. National AI policy The Thai cabinet approved the Thailand National AI Strategy and Action Plan (2022-2027) in July 2022, aiming to establish an AI development and application ecosystem by 2027. The strategy is built around five pillars: Preparing social, ethical, legal and regulatory readiness for AI; Developing national infrastructure; Increasing human capability and AI education; Driving AI technology and innovation; and Promoting AI adoption in public and private sectors. The above-mentioned national AI committee, under the National Digital Economy and Society Committee (NDESC), was established in August 2022, chaired by the prime minister. Comprehensive legislation Following the national AI strategy, the government has been developing comprehensive AI legislation to govern and promote AI
Read More