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

January 4, 2024

Thailand Unveils Regulations for Cross-Border Personal Data Transfer

Subscribe to Updates

On December 25, 2023, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) issued two notifications under sections 28 and 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (PDPA) that address essential aspects and criteria for the cross-border transfer of personal data. These notifications are scheduled to come into effect on March 24, 2024.

Key points in the notifications are outlined below.

Adequate Data Protection Standards (Section 28)

Unless otherwise provided by the PDPA, the destination country or international organization that receives the transferred personal data must have “adequate data protection standards,” as determined by the following factors:

  • Legal measures and mechanisms. The destination country or international organization must have legal measures or mechanisms aligned with the personal data protection laws in Thailand. Specifically, the obligations of data controllers need to include providing appropriate security measures, implementing personal data protection measures that are suitable and that enable the exercise of data subjects’ rights, and establishing effective legal remedial measures.
  • Regulatory authority. The presence of an agency or organization entrusted with the duties and authority to enforce laws and regulations related to personal data protection is also a critical factor.

In addition, this notification empowers the Office of the PDPC to refer cases, either independently identified or proposed by a data controller, to the PDPC for adjudication. The PDPC retains the discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis or to establish a list of destination countries or international organizations that it considers to have adequate data protection standards.

Binding Corporate Rules and Appropriate Safeguards (Section 29):

In the realm of global data exchange, two prominent mechanisms have emerged as key enablers of secure and compliant transfer of personal data:

  • Binding corporate rules (BCRs). Implementation of BCRs involves enforcing an approved policy for safeguarding personal data transferred among affiliated businesses or within the same group of undertakings in order to jointly operate the business.
  • Appropriate safeguards. Appropriate safeguards not only protect personal data but can also enforce the rights of data subjects and include effective legal remedial measures. These safeguards can take various forms, such as standard contractual clauses.

To be deemed effective mechanisms for cross-border data transfer, both BCRs and appropriate safeguards must do the following:

  • Maintain legal effectiveness and enforceability across all parties involved, including juristic and natural persons, data processors, senders/transferors, and recipients of personal data while complying with personal data protection laws and being binding upon the personnel, employees, staff, any other persons related to the senders/transferors, and recipients of the personal data;
  • Recognize personal data protection, the rights of the data subject, and lodging of complaints in relation to the personal data that has been sent or transferred to a foreign country; and
  • Provide personal data protection measures and security measures that comply with personal data protection laws and with the minimum standards prescribed by law, such as those described in the initial set of subordinate regulations enacted under the PDPA.

In the absence of a decision on adequate data protection standards or where there are no BCRs in place, cross-border transfer of personal data is permissible if appropriate safeguards are implemented. This implementation can take the form of any of the following:

  • Standard contractual clauses (SCCs) that serve as foundational frameworks for establishing legal agreements, especially in the context of cross-border data transfers. In this regard, Thailand currently accepts two distinct SCC models, the Thai Model and the Overseas Model. The specific provisions and applications of each model—either of which can be adopted, as appropriate—are summarized in the table below.

  • Certification of the implementation of the appropriate safeguards in accordance with recognized standards to be determined by the PDPC. These must include the personal data protection contents as prescribed in the notification.
  • Statutes or agreements that are legally binding and enforceable between state agencies in Thailand and foreign state agencies that transfer personal data between each other.

For more details on Thailand’s requirements for the cross-border transfer of personal data, or on any aspect of compliance with the PDPA, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected], Gvavalin Mahakunkitchareon at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], or Punyavee Koaysomboon at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More