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 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
Read More
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
Read More
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More