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Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor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The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: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

August 1, 2025
On July 21, 2025, Thailand’s National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA) released a draft amendment to the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019) for public hearing, aiming to address the rapid evolution of technology and increasing complexity of cyber threats. The proposed changes to the country’s cybersecurity framework would extend regulatory oversight to cloud service providers and data center operators hosting data for critical information infrastructure (CII) organizations regulated under the Cybersecurity Act. The NCSA will accept comments on the draft until August 5, 2025. Following the close of the public consultation period, the draft amendment will be subject to further revision during the legislative process. Key proposed amendments are discussed below. Expanded Critical Infrastructure Scope The Cybersecurity Act currently applies only to state agencies, supervising or regulating organizations, and designated CII organizations as announced by the National Cyber Security Committee (NCSC). It defines CII organizations as public or private organizations related to or providing national security, significant public services, banking and finance, information technologies, telecommunications, transportation and logistics, energy and public utilities, or public health. The draft amendment expands the scope of CII organizations to include public and private organizations related to or providing industrial work (to be further defined in subregulations) as well as service providers that store or possess data for CII organizations, such as cloud and data center service providers. CII organizations must comply with cyber threat reporting requirements and are subject to the NCSA’s interception powers. Updated Definitions and New Terminology The draft amendment more clearly distinguishes between “cyber threats” (which have yet to occur but have the potential of causing damage or impact) and “cyber incidents” (which have already occurred and have caused or are expected to cause damage or impact). The draft amendment also expands the definition of “cybersecurity” to explicitly cover both prevention
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 24, 2025
Thai authorities have escalated efforts to block unlawful cross-border digital asset business operators. On June 19, 2025, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) issued a notification empowering it to ban internet access to operations or services offered by digital asset business operators who lack licenses from the Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This ban, issued under the 2023 Royal Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crime, particularly aims to block Thai users’ access to services offered by unlicensed offshore digital asset providers via their own apps or websites or through public social media platforms. Compliance Requirements The notification requires internet service providers and social media platforms selected by MDES to immediately impose internet access restrictions on identified apps, websites, and IP addresses of illegal operators upon receiving MDES orders. Takedown Orders There are two tracks for competent officials at MDES to issue orders to operators: If the competent official is notified by the SEC of licensing noncompliance by a particular digital asset business operator, the competent official can issue a takedown order to the operator upon approval from the permanent secretary of MDES. If the competent official independently discovers, or receives a complaint from any third party other than the SEC, that a digital asset business operator may have violated licensing requirements, the competent official can ask the SEC to verify and confirm the relevant facts and noncompliance before seeking approval from the permanent secretary of MDES to issue the takedown order. Streamlined Enforcement Prior to this notification, the SEC could obtain takedown orders only from Thai courts under the 2007 Computer Crime Act to take down or block access to unlicensed digital asset platforms and apps. This was a relatively
Read More
July 24, 2025
Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security recently released a draft version of the 2025 Cybersecurity Law, which is intended to replace both the existing 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 Law on Network Information Security (LNIS). This consolidation reflects a broader effort by the Vietnamese government to streamline and centralize the legal framework governing cybersecurity, data protection, and information security to be under the sole authority of the Ministry of Public Security, moving away from the previous sharing of responsibility with the former Ministry of Information and Communications (which ceased operations earlier this year and merged with the Ministry of Science and Technology). This shift aims to eliminate overlaps and improve enforcement efficiency. The draft law is built upon the foundation of principles and provisions of both the 2018 Cybersecurity Law and the 2015 LNIS, while also introducing a wide range of amendments and new regulations. By merging the two laws, the government seeks to reduce legal fragmentation and ensure consistency in definitions, obligations, and enforcement mechanisms across related domains like data protection, IT system classification, and cybercrime prevention. The newly introduced amendments include enhanced obligations for service providers, stricter controls on information transmission, classification of IT systems, designation and protection of nationally important information systems, and sector-specific violations and compliance requirements. Highlights of the draft law are discussed below. Definition and Obligations of Service Providers The draft law clearly defines and significantly broadens the scope of entities considered “service providers” under its jurisdiction. This now includes businesses and individuals offering products or services in cyberspace, including both infrastructure and content online services, such as: Internet service providers (ISPs) and providers of telecommunications, hosting, servers, domain names, VPNs, proxy services, and cloud computing; Providers of social networks, websites, and online gaming; Financial institutions, banks, foreign bank branches in Vietnam, e-wallet
Read More