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​ 

April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
Read More