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

June 5, 2020

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act: A Guide to the Partial Compliance Extension

Subscribe to Updates

In May 2020, the Thai Cabinet approved a royal decree granting a one-year exemption from certain provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act 2019 (PDPA), which had been scheduled to take full effect on May 27, 2020. The new decree has extended the effective date for a number of the law’s provisions to May 31, 2021.

Key Elements of the Extension

Under the decree, certain critical provisions of the PDPA are not enforceable against exempted businesses (see list below) during the extension period, including the following:

  • General requirements and obligations on data controllers. Specifically, the postponed enforcement covers consent requirements, notification requirements, establishment of lawful basis, requirements on the collection of personal data from other sources, and processing of minors’ personal data. The enforcement of a second list of requirements is also postponed, including observance of data subjects’ rights and data erasure or destruction requirements, the implementation of appropriate internal security measures to prevent unauthorized access (section 37 (1)), provision of data breach notifications, appointment of data protection officers (DPOs), filing complaints, and penalties.
  • The grandfather provision (section 95) is also within the scope of the extension. This means that personal data collected or processed during the extension period will not be subject to the requirements enumerated in the second list above when they come into force in 2021. Furthermore, this data can be retained and used after the extension period has lapsed, provided that doing so is within the original purposes stated for collecting and processing the personal data. It is especially important to note that the scope of the grandfather provision does not include disclosure of personal data or processing of personal data outside of the original purposes stated.

However, as required by section 4, data controllers must still implement a minimum level of security protection measures for personal data in accordance with the standards to be prescribed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society, expected later this year.

It should also be noted that the requirement for the regulator to issue supplemental notifications and regulations is not within the scope of the extension. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) is therefore expected to continue issuing these supplemental measures during the extension period.

Exempted Businesses

The list of exempted businesses, below, covers a wide range of sectors and industries, and applies regardless of location:

  • Agriculture
  • Industrial businesses
  • Commerce
  • Medical and public health businesses
  • Energy, steam, water, waste disposal, and related businesses
  • Construction
  • Repair and maintenance
  • Transportation, logistics, and warehousing
  • Tourism
  • Communication, telecommunications, computers, and digital enterprises
  • Financial, banking, and insurance enterprises
  • Real estate
  • Professional practice
  • Administration and support
  • Science and technology, academia, social welfare, and arts
  • Education
  • Entertainment and recreation
  • Security
  • Household operations and SMEs that cannot be classified
  • Government agencies
  • Foreign government agencies and international organizations
  • Foundations, associations, and religious and nonprofit organizations

What to Do Now

In addition to staying up to date on the issuance and implementation of supplemental notifications and regulations under the PDPA over the coming year, businesses should make use of the additional time to prepare for compliance. A sample framework for doing so is provided below.

Step 1: Identify the personal data currently possessed by the company

Estimated timeframe: 1–3 months

In this stage, it is important to understand the PDPA’s requirements and conduct self-assessments to identify an entity’s current and anticipated personal data processing activities. To identify the main processing activities, companies should answer the five Ws:

  • Who are the relevant data subjects and the responsible personnel?
  • What types of personal data are collected and processed, and what are the sources?
  • When is the personal data collected and updated, and how long is it retained?
  • Where is the physical and digital data stored and transferred to (i.e. within Thailand or overseas)?
  • Why is the personal data being collected or processed?

This should be a reported in an internal assessment to aid widespread understanding of the practice—especially the original purpose for collecting or processing the personal data—within the organization.

Gaps and mitigation measures should also be identified, including:

  • processing activities that require consent as the lawful basis;
  • processing activities that can rely on another lawful basis (e.g. “legitimate interest”);
  • relevant retention periods pertaining to the various types of personal data; and
  • list of data processors, the scope of their data processing activities, and relevant personal data pertaining to the activities.

Step 2: Close the gaps and monitoring for new subordinate regulations

Estimated Timeframe: 2-4 months for closing gaps, monitoring ongoing until May 31, 2021

In this stage, organizations should monitor the issuance and development of new subordinate legislation—including through public hearings—to ensure that they are aware of their compliance obligations. At the same time, it will be necessary to focus also on closing the gaps identified in Step 1 by implementing the necessary mitigation measures and putting measures in place to ensure operational compliance. This may include preparing the following:

Privacy policies for relevant data subjects. Where consent is identified as the lawful basis, consent forms must be prepared for the relevant data subjects (e.g. individual customers, employees, etc.).

  • A data processing agreement (or addendum) template to be arranged, proposed, and countersigned by the relevant data processors.
  • A record of processing activities.
  • A record of internal assessments where legitimate interest is to be relied upon as the lawful basis (noting that these should be carried out in consideration of organizational conflicts of interest).
  • Plans for a DPO or DPO team, depending on the size of the operation and quantity of personal data involved, and in accordance with the DPO qualifications prescribed by the PDPC.
  • A custom internal training program, addressing current gaps and relevant parties in the context of the new legal requirements.
  • Internal rules forbidding collection of personal data without justification or lawful basis, or that is not necessary for business operations. Any personal data of this type that is currently being processed should also be deleted at this time.

When the subordinate laws on data subject rights become publicly available, it will be necessary to examine the requirements and set up a process for managing requests to uphold data subject rights, as well as data controller and processor obligations under the PDPA.

Achieving Compliance on Schedule

By following these steps, organizations can ensure that they will be fully compliant when the extension period ends on May 31, 2021. The estimated timeframes of the various steps listed above can give an idea of how long each step will take, but the actual schedules should be determined based on the level of PDPA readiness within the organization, the scale of implementation, and any future developments of the subordinate legislation under the PDPA. Companies should work closely with local legal counsel to ensure that their compliance measures are on track, and will be effective when the law comes into force.

Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to monitor the development of the PDPA and provide updates as they emerge. If you have questions about the PDPA, or any other aspect of data compliance in Thailand, please do not hesitate to contact any member of the PDPA team, including Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected] or Nopparat Lalitkomon at [email protected].

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
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