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​ 

May 22, 2026
On May 8, 2026, the Thai government held a press conference to announce a coordinated, multiagency initiative to strengthen oversight and enforcement over products sold on online platforms. The initiative involves the Office of the Consumer Protection Board, the Thai Industrial Standards Institute, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency, the Thailand Consumers Council, the Consumer Protection Police Division, and major online platform operators. With this appointment, the government has signaled a deliberate shift from a predominantly reactive enforcement framework toward a more proactive regulatory and monitoring approach for online commerce and digital platform services. Legal and Regulatory Reform The government is accelerating a proposed Product Liability Law that would introduce new statutory frameworks for defective or substandard products, along with amendments to food safety and consumer protection legislation. The draft law has already been approved by the cabinet; the Council of State and relevant authorities will further draft the law and subsequently issue it for public hearings prior to enactment. Authorities also plan to expand enforcement measures against noncompliant businesses and distributors. In particular: The implementation of stricter “know your merchant” (KYM) identity verification requirements for online sellers. Expanded mandatory standards and regulatory oversight for high-risk products, such as power banks, electrical appliances, food products, and household goods. Increased monitoring of online product listings, and coordination with platform operators to remove unsafe, counterfeit, misleading, or otherwise noncompliant products. Additional monitoring and enforcement measures targeting online scams and illegal goods distributed through digital platforms, including e-cigarettes, which authorities identified as a growing concern due to increasing online distribution channels and potential health impact on young consumers. Strengthening Consumer Complaint Mechanisms The government announced increased cooperation with the Thailand Consumers Council and other agencies to facilitate complaint handling, market monitoring, and policy recommendations. Enhanced interagency coordination will aim to ensure that consumer
Read More
May 19, 2026
Thailand’s telecommunications regulator has introduced a range of new compliance obligations for telecom licensees aimed at preventing and suppressing technology crime. On May 15, 2026, the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) published in the Government Gazette Notification on Measures for Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crime No. 2, which amends the original NBTC notification dated August 24, 2025. The amendment derives its authority from the Emergency Decree on Measures for Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crime B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, and took effect on May 16, 2026. SIM Card Registration Cap for Non-Thai Nationals Persons without Thai nationality are now limited to a maximum of three SIM cards per person per service provider. Identity verification must be done primarily via passport. For those without a passport, acceptable alternatives include travel documents or certificates of identity issued by foreign governments, accompanied by additional Thai government-issued documents, as well as pink ID cards (for persons without Thai nationality) and white ID cards (for persons without registration status). Registration must be done in person at a branch or authorized dealer. Service providers must develop their identity verification systems and obtain NBTC approval before deployment. SIM Activation Deadline and SIM Box Prohibition Both Thai and non-Thai service users must activate their registered SIM within 60 days of registration. If they fail to do so, they must re-verify their identity in person before activation, confirming they are the same person who originally registered. Service providers must prohibit SIM box and gateway devices capable of supporting four or more SIMs from connecting to their mobile networks unless the device has received a license under the Radio Communications Act. Blacklist Enforcement Service providers must refuse registration of additional mobile numbers for persons listed on a technology crime-related database maintained by the Royal
Read More
May 6, 2026
Thailand has introduced new requirements for online social media platforms to verify the identity of paying advertisers before publishing their advertisements. On May 5, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Commission published the Notification on Measures for Prevention of Technology Crime for Online Social Media (No. 2) in the Government Gazette. The notification, which aims to prevent technology crimes such as fraud and scams, takes effect 180 days after publication (i.e., on November 1, 2026). Mandatory Advertiser Identity Verification Online social media service providers must verify the identity of every advertiser before publishing an advertisement. Verification remains valid for up to one year from the most recent verification date. The notification requires social media providers to use either of the following methods when verifying advertisers: Document-based verification: Examine government-issued identity documents (e.g., national ID, passport, or juristic person registration certificate), cross-check the connection between the advertiser and the identity documents (e.g., facial comparison with photo ID), and ensure that the identity documents are verifiable against reliable sources. Digital identity verification: Use an identity verification system with a level of assurance no lower than that prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission. Advertiser Data Collection and Retention Service providers must collect and retain certain data—including name, identification number, and contact details—from the start of the advertising service and for a minimum of 90 days after the end of the advertising service relationship. The same requirements apply where there is a third-party payer, such as an ad agency. Implications for Affected Businesses The notification raises two key areas of concern for affected businesses: Social media platforms must implement know-your-advertiser (KYA) onboarding as described above, including document upload and identity matching processes. The 180-day implementation window requires immediate technical and operational planning. The collection and retention of national ID cards, passport copies, and other personal
Read More
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More