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

August 10, 2026

Thailand’s Draft Compliance Guidelines Position ROPA as Core Accountability Tool

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records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The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: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, and security measures in advance.

Potential Impact

The draft guidance will require operational and governance changes for most organizations:

  • Operational overhaul. Organizations will need to expand ROPA beyond IT to cover all departments and activities, including HR, marketing, security, and finance.
  • Governance alignment. ROPA must align with privacy notices, consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts, requiring cross-functional coordination.
  • Vendor management. Organizations must identify all processors, subprocessors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers; document access scope and destination countries; and execute data processing agreements.
  • Ongoing maintenance costs. Annual reviews, version control, change logs, and mandatory pre-launch updates will create recurring compliance workloads.
  • Marketing and AI activities. Higher-risk processing activities, including certain targeted marketing, customer behavior analysis, and AI-based tools may require DPIAs before launch.
  • Breach response preparedness. Organizations with incomplete ROPA may face delayed breach notifications and regulatory scrutiny.

The highest-risk areas include incomplete activity inventories, incorrect controller/processor classification, failure to identify lawful bases or retention periods, missing vendor or cross-border records, and lack of auditability.

Strategic Outlook

As the draft guidance continues to move toward formal adoption, organizations can use it as a prompt to refresh their data maps, ROPA templates, privacy notices, consent management, retention schedules, DPIA and LIA triggers, vendor contracts, and breach response documentation before the guidance is finalized. Specific actions organizations can take based on the current draft include:

  • Preparing ROPA as an organization-wide register covering all processing activities, not just IT systems.
  • Mapping whether each party is a controller or processor for each activity.
  • Assigning a ROPA owner, implementing version control, and maintaining a change history.
  • Requiring ROPA updates before launching new systems, adding new purposes, changing processors, or introducing new technologies.
  • Identifying all processors, subprocessors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers with documented purposes, access scope, and destination countries.
  • Using ROPA to identify high-risk activities and trigger DPIAs or LIAs where appropriate.

With this indication that the PDPC expects ROPA to assume a more central role in organizational privacy compliance programs, organizations that adjust their ROPA practices to match these new expectations will be better placed to demonstrate accountability and respond quickly in PDPC-related matters.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More
January 9, 2026
Vietnam has taken a decisive step into the global artificial intelligence regulatory landscape with the promulgation of the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law), adopted on December 10, 2025, and effective from March 1, 2026. As one of the earliest comprehensive, standalone AI statutes in Southeast Asia, the AI Law signals Vietnam’s ambition to position itself as both an innovation-friendly and governance-conscious AI market. In doing so, the legislature has also streamlined Vietnam’s AI regulatory architecture. The AI Law repeals most AI-related provisions previously embedded in the Law on Digital Technology Industry No. 71/2025/QH15, consolidating AI governance under a single, unified legal framework. This structural move underscores an intent to provide greater regulatory clarity and coherence for businesses operating across the AI value chain. Against this backdrop, the key question for AI developers, providers, deployers, and governance teams is how the new risk-based framework will shape compliance expectations, operational decisions, and governance design in practice. This article examines the new AI Law through that practical lens, focusing on what it means for AI businesses operating in or into Vietnam. Scope of Application The AI Law applies broadly to Vietnamese organizations and individuals, as well as foreign entities that participate in AI-related activities within Vietnam. The law expressly excludes AI activities conducted solely for national defense, security, and cryptography purposes. A defining feature of the AI Law is that it regulates by role, not by industry. It distinguishes between: Developers, who design, build, train, test, or fine-tune AI models and have direct control over the technical methods, training data, or model parameters; Providers, who place AI systems on the market or put them into use under their own names; Deployers, who use AI systems under their control in professional, commercial, or service-provision activities; Users, who interact with AI
Read More