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​ 

June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More