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​ 

July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More