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 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