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Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor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The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: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

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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More