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 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
Read More
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
Read More
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
Read More
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded
Read More