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

Subscribe to Updates

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.

Download Full Article
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