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 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More
March 27, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has publicly indicated that it is preparing a new regulatory framework for data center operators that may introduce foreign-ownership restrictions. In particular, the NBTC is considering reclassifying data center operations from a type 1 telecommunications business license to a type 3 license. If implemented, this change would subject data center operators to a significantly more stringent regulatory regime, especially in relation to foreign ownership and control. The NBTC has indicated that it intends to propose a draft framework to the NBTC board. This would be followed by a public hearing process, with a view to implementing the new rules within 2026. Under the Telecommunications Business Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended, telecommunications businesses operating under type 3 licenses are subject to foreign ownership restrictions, including a requirement that less than 50% of the total issued shares be held by foreign shareholders. In addition, type 3 licensees are subject to foreign dominance restrictions, which prohibit arrangements that allow foreigners to dominate the business. These foreign dominance restrictions are broad in scope and may capture various forms of direct and indirect control or influence. This includes circumstances in which a foreign national is able to influence or control the formulation of policy, management, or business operations, or the appointment of directors or senior executives. At this stage, the exact scope of the proposed rules remains unclear. Businesses with existing or planned data center operations in Thailand should therefore monitor upcoming NBTC developments in this regard and prepare for the expected public hearing process.
Read More
March 27, 2026
Vietnam’s emerging governance framework for artificial intelligence (AI) is developing through a multi-layered structure comprising three components: Policy instruments setting national priorities for AI development; Regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI; and Technical standards and voluntary guidelines. Policy level. At policy level, the foundation for a strategic framework for AI development and governance was laid in 2021 by the National Strategy for Research, Development and Application of AI until 2030, aimed at strengthening the national AI ecosystem and positioning Vietnam as a regional AI innovation hub. Subsequently, resolution No.57-NQ/TW (2024) identified AI as a key driver of science, technology, innovation and national digital transformation. AI was also designated as a strategic technology under decision No.1131/QD-TTg (2025) listing priority technologies across sectors. Regulatory framework. At the legislative level, the new Law on Artificial Intelligence took effect on 1 March 2026, establishing the core regulatory framework governing development, provision, deployment and use of AI systems. Controlled testing for emerging AI technologies is implemented under the Law on Science, Technology and Innovation. The AI Law is expected to be further operationalised through implementing instruments, most notably a draft decree guiding the AI Law, and draft decision of the prime minister identifying high-risk AI systems (both published in February 2026). A decision establishing priority datasets for AI development is also anticipated. Compliance obligations may also arise under sectoral regulatory regimes, including data protection, cybersecurity, banking, consumer protection, e-commerce and intellectual property, particularly where AI systems are used in automated decision-making or data-driven services. Technical standards and non-binding guidelines. Vietnam’s AI governance framework is also supported by technical standards and voluntary guidelines. A key instrument is decision No.1290/QD-BKHCN (2024), providing guidelines for responsible research and development of AI systems, and represents Vietnam’s first national AI ethics code. The Ministry of Science and Technology
Read More