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

January 22, 2019

Thailand’s Draft Personal Data Protection Act at Final Consideration Stage

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s draft Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which was approved by the Council of State in December 2018, is now under consideration of the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), which will appoint an extraordinary committee to consider the details. Once the committee approves the draft, the NLA will consider their opinion, issue a final approval, and present it to the monarch to be signed into law.

It will then be published in the Government Gazette before becoming effective, which is expected within 2019. Most provisions will come into force 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette.

Highlights of the current draft PDPA include:

  • Extraterritorial effect. Overseas data controllers and processers can be subject to the PDPA if they offer any goods or services to data subjects in Thailand, or monitor any behavior that takes place within Thailand. Such overseas data controllers and processers must also appoint a local representative and comply with the PDPA. The concept has been adopted substantially from the GDPR.
  • Definition of Personal Data. The definition of “Personal Data” remains unchanged from the previous draft—i.e., any data pertaining to a person that enables the identification of that person, whether directly or indirectly, but specifically excluding data of the deceased. Personal Data does not include business information (business title, business address, and business contact details).
  • Definition of a Data Subject. This definition has been entirely deleted since the previous hearing. Interpretation of “Data Subject” now varies section-by-section.
  • Collecting consent. Requests for consent must be clear and must not be made to deceive or mislead the data subject. Consent must be made in writing or via electronic means, unless impossible by its nature. Consent can be exempted in several circumstances, including for vital interests, legitimate interests, public interests, and the performance of contractual obligations. 
  • Parental consent for minors. The draft PDPA still requires parental consent for data subjects under 10 years old, and parental consent in certain circumstances for minors over 10 years old.
  • Sensitive personal data. Categories of sensitive personal data are unchanged from the previous draft, including labor union-related data, genetic data, and biometric data. 
  • Transfer to third countries. The requirements and exemptions for the transfer of personal data to a third country which does not have an adequate level of protection (generally strictly prohibited) are unchanged. The exemptions are:
  1. transferring personal data pursuant to applicable laws;
  2. consent from the data subject, who has been informed that the third country lacks a suitable level of data protection;
  3. it is necessary to comply with contracts in which the data subject is a party, or pursuant to the data subject’s requests prior to entering into contracts;
  4. transfer in accordance with an agreement between a data controller and another entity for the benefit of the data subject;
  5. to prevent or suspend damage to the life, body, or health of the data subject, or other persons, when the consent of the data subject could not be obtained at that time; and
  6. when necessary for substantial public interest purposes.
  • Right to data portability. The PDPA still grants data subjects the right to data portability.
  • Data protection officer. Data controllers and data processors must designate a data protection officer when their collection, use, or transfer of personal data regularly requires monitoring of personal data or systems, due to the possession of personal data on a large scale, as designated by the Personal Data Protection Commission, or when their core activities relate to collecting, using, or transferring sensitive personal data.
  • Civil liabilities. Civil liability remains unchanged—the court can order punitive damages up to twice the value of the actual damage.
  • Administrative fines. Administrative fines range from THB 1 million to THB 5 million, as in the previous draft.

We will continue to monitor the status of this draft PDPA closely. If you have any questions, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
Read More
April 9, 2026
As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities. The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data. Structure of the Consultation Process According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases: Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA. Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations. Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder
Read More
April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More