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

March 13, 2018

Thailand: Update on the Latest Draft of the Personal Data Protection Act

In January 2018, the government called for the fourth public hearing of the draft Personal Data Protection Act. There were no substantial changes in this draft as compared to the prior version published in March 2015, although minor changes were made. This article reviews some of the key provisions in the latest draft bill, noting where changes have been made from the previous draft.

§5: Definition of “Personal Data” – unchanged

“Personal Data” means any data pertaining to a person, which enables the identification of that person, whether directly or indirectly, but not including data which specifies only the name, title, workplace, or business address and data of the deceased specifically.

§5: Definition of a “Data Controller” – unchanged

“Personal Data Controller” means a person or juristic person with the power and duty to make decisions regarding the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data.

§5: Definition of “Data Processor” – updated

“Personal Data Processor” means a person or a juristic person that collects, uses, or discloses Personal Data on behalf of, or in accordance with, the instructions of a Personal Data Controller.

§20: Consent Requirements and Exemptions – updated

Consent from a Data Subject is still required for the collection of Personal Data. Under the 2015 draft, consent is exempted if data is collected:

  1. for conducting research, statistical analysis, or for the public interest, and the data is kept confidential;
  2. for preventing emergencies or protecting others from danger;
  3. from publicly available information;
  4. in compliance with the law; or,
  5. for other reasons as further prescribed by the Commission.

The new 2018 draft includes two additional provisions:

  1. for the public interest or in the exercise of a government authority, which is the Data Controller, provided that it does not violate the fundamental rights and freedom of the Data Subject; and
  2. for the legitimate interests of the Data Controller or a third party, provided that it does not violate the fundamental rights and freedom of the Data Subject.

§23: Cross-border Transfer of Personal Data – unchanged

Overseas transfers of Personal Data must be made in accordance with a specific regulation, which is to be prescribed by the Commission, except in the following cases:

  • where the law so prescribes;
  • where the consent of the Data Subject has been obtained;
  • where it is in compliance with a contract entered into by the Data Subject and the Data Controller;
  • where it is for the interests of the Data Subject, who is unable to give consent at such time;
  • where it is a transmission to a person who has been granted a mark certifying the standards in relation to personal data protection; or
  • other cases as prescribed by the Commission.

§28: Data Controller’s Duties – updated

Under the 2015 draft, the Data Controller is required to meet the following requirements:

  • Security Measures. Arrange for appropriate security measures to prevent unauthorized access.
  • Prevention Measures. If the personal data must be disclosed to another person (non-Data Controller), the Data Controller must prevent that person from using or disclosing the Personal Data unlawfully, or without authorization.
  • Deletion Requirement. Destroy Personal Data when the permitted period expires, or the Data Subject revokes their consent.
  • Notification of Breach. Inform the Data Subject of any breach incident without delay. The number of cases in which the Data Subjects have been affected must also be reported to the Commission, as required by the Commission.
  • New Internal Assessment Requirement. Frequently assess possible impacts to Personal Data from a privacy aspect.

§29: Data Processor’s Duties – new

The Data Processor is required to:

  • arrange for collection, use, or disclosure of Personal Data, specifically in accordance with the instructions of the Data Controller, except for those instructions which are unlawful or which fall outside the personal data protection requirements under this act;
  • arrange for appropriate security measures to prevent unauthorized access to Personal Data; and
  • prepare and maintain records for processing transactions, as further required by the Commission.

§69 – 73: Penalties – updated

Imprisonment penalties have all been removed. The monetary fines remain unchanged.

§81: Grandfather Provision – new

The Data Controller may continue to use data that was collected before the law became effective for the purpose for which the Data Subject was initially informed. However, the Data Controller must arrange to obtain the consent of preexisting Data Subjects within a period, and under conditions, to be further prescribed by a ministerial regulation, provided that the period under the ministerial regulation does not exceed three years.

Effective Date

The 2018 draft Personal Data Protection Act will be effective 365 days after publication in the Government Gazette. When the law eventually comes into effect, it is sure to have a major impact on business operations. All businesses will need to continue to closely monitor the progress of the Personal Data Protection Act as it continues to move through the legislative process.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 6, 2026
Vietnam has introduced an official list of high-risk AI systems, triggering more stringent compliance obligations for developers, suppliers, and deployers operating in the country. On June 30, 2026, the prime minister issued Decision No. 33/2026/QD-TTg (Decision 33), which establishes the List of High-Risk AI Systems under the Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law) and Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142). Decision 33 takes effect on August 15, 2026. Decision 33 is significant because only AI systems included on the list will be subject to the heightened compliance obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems under the AI Law and Decree 142. These include, among others, local presence requirements for foreign providers, mandatory conformity assessment before deployment, comprehensive risk management and data quality documentation, and strict liability for damages even when the provider is fully compliant. Decision 33 also specifies the applicable conformity assessment pathway for each listed system, indicating whether the system must undergo mandatory third-party conformity certification before being placed into use, or whether the provider may self-assess conformity or voluntarily engage a registered or recognized conformity assessment body. Which AI Systems Are Covered? Decision 33 identifies high-risk AI systems across six sectors—the key attributes of which are summarized below. Education: AI systems used for automated assessment, learner ranking, behavioral monitoring, or generating educational content from uncontrolled data sources. Ethnic affairs and religion: AI systems used to automatically score, classify, or rank applications for government ethnic policies; approve or reject regulatory applications; suspend benefits on suspicion of fraud; allocate budgets; or infer and classify individuals by ethnicity or religion for administrative purposes. Healthcare: AI-assisted surgical systems and autonomous AI-powered surgical robots. Banking: AI systems that autonomously conduct electronic banking transactions or make credit approval decisions. Judicial proceedings: Certain large-scale biometric identification systems used in public-interest civil proceedings. Transport: Thirty-one categories
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
July 6, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Data Protection & Privacy 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into data protection and privacy regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s data protection framework, addressing both regulatory structure and practical compliance considerations for businesses operating in or engaging with Vietnam. Topics covered include: Law and the regulatory authority: Legislative framework; data protection authority; cooperation with other data protection authorities; breaches of data protection law; judicial review of data protection authority orders Scope: Exempt sectors and institutions; interception of communications and surveillance laws; other laws; personal information formats; extraterritoriality; covered uses of personal information Legitimate processing of personal information: Lawful bases for processing; grounds for legitimate processing; types of personal information Data handling responsibilities of owners of personal information: Transparency; exemptions from transparency obligations; data accuracy; data minimization; data retention; purpose limitation; automated decision-making Security: Security obligations; notification of data breaches; internal controls Accountability: Data protection officer requirements; record-keeping; risk assessment; design of personal information processing systems Registration and notification: Registration requirements; other transparency duties Sharing and cross-border transfers of personal information: Sharing with processors and service providers; restrictions on third-party disclosures; cross-border transfers; further transfers; localization requirements Rights of individuals: Right of access; other statutory rights; compensation Enforcement: Enforcement mechanisms; exemptions, derogations, and restrictions; further exemptions and restrictions Specific data processing: Cookies and similar technologies; electronic communications marketing; targeted advertising; sensitive personal information; profiling; cloud services The chapter concludes with an update on key legal and regulatory developments over the past year and emerging trends in Vietnam’s data protection landscape. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Data
July 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible