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

February 3, 2025

Thailand’s PDPC Hosts Event to Promote Data Protection Awareness

Subscribe to Updates

On January 28, 2025, the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) hosted Data Privacy Day 2025, bringing together over 1,000 participants from both the public and private sectors. The event underscored the importance of personal data protection and aimed to raise nationwide awareness while fostering a culture of compliance. During the event, the PDPC reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening Thailand’s data protection framework to align with international standards. The initiative also emphasized the collective goal of achieving zero data breaches.

During the first session of the event, Mr. Prasert Jantararuangtong, deputy prime minister and minister of digital economy and society, delivered a speech highlighting the role of personal data protection in fostering Thailand’s digital economy. He emphasized that strong data protection measures enhance business credibility, build consumer trust, and attract foreign investment. He also addressed the PDPC’s “zero data breach” policy and the ongoing issue of data leaks, which have been exploited by call-center scam operations to deceive the public and cause financial harm.

Additionally, Mr. Prasert announced that the Thai cabinet has approved a draft amendment to the Emergency Decree on Cyber Crime Prevention and Suppression B.E. 2566 (2023), commonly referred to as the “Cyber Crime Decree.” The draft will now proceed to the Council of State for review before its official enactment. Key provisions of the amendment include holding financial institutions, telecom providers, and social media platforms accountable for technology-related crimes; requiring compensation for victims; and enforcing stricter security measures. Cyber offenses, including personal data trading, face harsher penalties of up to THB 5 million in fines or five years of imprisonment. Authorities are also empowered to suspend suspicious SIM cards for committing illegal activities and expedite monetary refunds for victims without court approval.

In the second session, the Office of the PDPC presented its 2024 Privacy Maturity Model and Privacy Index report, summarizing key findings and developments in Thailand’s personal data protection landscape.

Privacy Maturity Model

The Privacy Maturity Model consists of assessment criteria designed to evaluate the readiness of government agencies and private entities in implementing personal data protection measures. The Privacy Maturity Model provides online self-assessment questionnaires for organizations to assess their compliance levels under the PDPA.

The model classifies organizations into five maturity levels based on compliance status and implementation of personal data protection measures:

  • Initial (Level 1) – Minimal compliance, with key legal requirements not yet fully implemented.
  • Managed (Level 2) – A structured approach to data protection is in place, but gaps remain in meeting full legal requirements.
  • Defined (Level 3) – Full compliance with legal requirements has been achieved in a systematic manner.
  • Measured (Level 4) – Ongoing performance monitoring and assessment have been implemented to enhance effectiveness.
  • Optimizing (Level 5) – Data protection practices are continuously refined and improved based on evaluation metrics.

The Privacy Maturity Model assesses organizations across 10 areas: oversight, policies and procedures, training and awareness, individuals’ rights, transparency, ROPA and lawful basis, contracts and data sharing, risk management, data security, and breach response and monitoring. The assessment aligns with the PDPA, covering both legal requirements and best practices.

Overall, the first-year Privacy Maturity Model assessment recorded an average score of 2.72 out of 5. In 2024, 142 entities participated in the assessment, including 69 government agencies and 31 private sector organizations, spanning various industries. The financial, investment, and insurance industries achieved the highest scores, with 47% of participating organizations scoring above the average. Across all categories, the highest-scoring areas were (1) Policies and Procedures (e.g., implementation of privacy policies), (2) Training and Awareness, and (3) Oversight. Conversely, the lowest-scoring areas were (1) contracts and data sharing (e.g., lack of safeguards for B2B and cross-border data sharing), (2) breach response and monitoring (e.g., absence of data breach handling policies or breach notification procedures), and (3) individuals’ rights (e.g., lack of identity verification before processing data subject requests).

Privacy Index

The key difference between the Privacy Index and the Privacy Maturity Model is that while the Privacy Maturity Model is an internal assessment based solely on self-assessment and internal data, the Privacy Index incorporates external data for a more comprehensive evaluation. The Privacy Index assigns scores on a scale of 0 to 100 and evaluates organizations using two types of data sources:

  • Primary data – Information obtained from questionnaires or evidence submitted by the organization.
  • Secondary data – Information collected from external sources, including reported data breaches, complaints filed with the PDPC, or publicly available information.

Overall, the average Privacy Index score was 51.03, with private-sector organizations scoring an average of 63.12, while the financial, investment, and insurance industries achieved the highest scores. The results suggest that organizations generally demonstrate a moderate level of personal data protection, complying with legal requirements to some extent. However, organizations should strive for more comprehensive compliance, with greater emphasis on preparing and maintaining ROPAs to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities and on enhancing data security measures based on these findings.

Outlook

The PDPC’s Data Privacy Day 2025 event highlighted the importance of personal data protection and set a clear direction for Thailand’s digital future. The implementation of the Privacy Maturity Model and Privacy Index provides organizations with valuable tools to assess and improve their data protection practices. As Thailand continues to strengthen its data protection framework, the collective efforts of the public and private sectors to put in place strong safeguards and procedures will help the country achieve the goal of zero data breaches.

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