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​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More