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 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
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More