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

April 9, 2026

Thailand’s Public Consultation on Proposed PDPA Guidelines: Key Updates

Subscribe to Updates

As part of its ongoing public consultation process for the development of new practical guidelines under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) held a two‑day public hearing on April 1–2, 2026. The hearing followed an online questionnaire and stakeholder engagement activities conducted in March 2026 and reflects the PDPC’s continued efforts to develop guidance that aligns international regulatory standards with Thai operational realities.

The public hearing provided a forum for participants from both the public and private sectors to exchange views with the PDPC on the proposed guidance so that it responds to the needs of the business community while supporting effective and balanced enforcement of the PDPA. The PDPC emphasized that the consultation process is part of a wider policy objective to build trust in the convenient, secure, and internationally aligned exchange of data.

Structure of the Consultation Process

According to the PDPC, the initiative to develop the draft PDPA guidelines is being implemented through three core phases:

  • Review of international best practices. The PDPC has conducted a comparative review of data protection guidance and regulatory approaches in jurisdictions with internationally recognized standards, including Singapore, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU), and Japan. These materials are intended to serve as a reference point for developing practical recommendations across key subject areas under the PDPA.
  • Identification of practical issues and challenges. To ensure that the guidelines respond to real‑world compliance challenges in Thailand, the PDPC has gathered views from a broad range of stakeholders across the public sector, the private sector, and the general public. This phase included focus group discussions and questionnaires aimed at identifying areas to provide organizations with greater clarity and consistency on regulatory expectations.
  • Preparation of draft guidelines. Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder feedback are being consolidated to prepare draft guidance covering six core thematic areas (see the following section), intended to reflect both international standards and the practical realities of PDPA implementation in Thailand. The input gathered will be used to inform a draft set of guidelines.

Overview of Draft Guidelines

The consultation process has now advanced beyond open‑ended issue identification, with the PDPC presenting substantive draft guidelines that provide clearer insight into the regulatory focus of the six core thematic areas:

  • Lawful basis for processing personal data. The draft guidelines clarify the importance of lawful basis and lay out how organizations should identify, assess, and document lawful bases for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. They emphasize necessity, proportionality, and accountability and address both general and sensitive personal data, supported by practical examples, checklists, and FAQs.
  • Security measures and personal data breach notification. To address this area, the draft guidelines set out a structured framework for security measures, covering technical, administrative, and physical measures, as well as consideration for conducting data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) and managing risks arising from third parties and data transfers. They further provide detailed operational guidance on identifying and assessing personal data breaches, determining notification obligations, incident response procedures, documentation, and timelines for notifying the Office of the PDPC and affected data subjects.
  • Data protection officers (DPOs). The draft guidance clarifies when an organization is required to appoint a DPO and sets out expectations regarding the DPO’s role, professional qualifications, independence, reporting lines, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also includes checklists for key compliance concerns, such as the appointment process, the DPO’s position within the organization, and accessibility to data subjects and the Office of the PDPC.
  • Marketing and direct marketing. These guidelines also set out relevant data protection principles for the use of personal data for marketing and direct marketing purposes, such as purpose limitation, data minimization, lawful bases for processing, and applicable data subject rights. They categorize different types of marketing activities (including direct marketing, online tracking, profiling, and platform‑based targeting), provide practical organizational procedures on transparency, opt‑out mechanisms, and consent withdrawal, and provide illustrative case studies and FAQs on common marketing scenarios.
  • Records of processing activities (ROPAs). The draft ROPA guidelines position ROPAs as a core accountability and compliance tool, highlighting mandatory content, the roles of controllers and processors, and a structured approach to preparation, review, and updating ROPAs. This includes practical examples (e.g., HR, customer management, IT vendors, CCTV), templates, and a questionnaire for gathering information within the organization for filling in the ROPA.
  • Use of CCTV and access control systems. The guidelines address personal data processing involving CCTV and related surveillance technologies in housing estates and condominiums, with the objective of promoting PDPA‑compliant, industry‑consistent practices. Also covered are common risk areas, such as visitor management, biometrics, license plate recognition, and resident portals, as well as practical guidance and FAQs for typical operational scenarios.

Regulatory Signals

The April 1–2 public hearing indicates that the PDPC is moving into a more mature, internationally informed phase of PDPA guidance development while remaining attentive to domestic operational challenges. Although the forthcoming guidelines will not have the force of law, they are expected to influence regulatory expectations, compliance assessments, and enforcement decisions.

Organizations should therefore anticipate greater clarity but not a relaxation of PDPA obligations, and may wish to begin reviewing current compliance frameworks, particularly in higher‑risk processing areas, internal documentation practices, and governance arrangements, in preparation for the final guidance.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 24, 2021
On September 15, 2021, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a prospective new scheme that will enable small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and startups in Thailand to raise funds through public offerings. The SEC regulations to implement this new scheme are expected by the first quarter of 2022. Since 2019, the SEC has allowed SMEs and startups in Thailand to raise funds via private placements or crowdfunding. The new SEC scheme will allow SMEs and startups to raise funds on a larger scale via a new type of public offering (the so-called SME-PO). The SEC also plans to establish the “SME Board,” a secondary market for trading the stocks of SMEs. Under the new SEC scheme, SMEs and startups that wish to proceed with an SME-PO must be structured as public companies with investor protection mechanisms in accordance with the Public Company Act B.E. 2535 (1992). Although SEC representatives have previously indicated that SME-POs would be subject to an information-based approach instead of the normal approval process for public offerings, the September 15 announcement does not detail this further, beyond noting that the SEC may deem it appropriate in future to relax certain requirements such as filing for approval, appointment of an independent financial advisor, and fees. Investors in public offerings for SMEs and startups must be sophisticated investors who are risk-tolerant and well capitalized, such as institutional investors, private equity or venture capital firms, angel investors, or an SMEs’ own directors, employees, or affiliates. Tilleke & Gibbins will continue to follow the development of regulations for SME-POs, as the rules and criteria described here are still subject to change. For more information on fundraising alternatives for SMEs and startups, or on any aspect of capital markets regulations in Thailand, please contact Onunya Chanpen at [email protected] or Kobkit Thienpreecha
Read More
August 26, 2021
Background In Thailand, bad-faith domain name registrations can present a unique challenge to brand owners. According to the current domain registration policy, Thai domain names can be based on the registered name of a company or organization, or on a registered trademark, depending on the domain name category. When Thailand’s domain name registrar, the Thai Network Information Centre Foundation (THNIC), considers applications for new domain names, it examines only whether the applicant meets these criteria – and not whether the application has been led in bad faith, such as when a registered company uses someone else’s registered trademark without authorization. Domain name registration in Thailand is a first-to-file system, so if all criteria are met, THNIC must allow registration. There are no opposition or cancellation proceedings, making it impossible for an interested person, as well as THNIC itself, to invalidate a Thai-registered domain name. Disputes between two legitimate owners Disputes sometimes arise between trademark owners and Thai-registered companies, such as third-party companies, local distributors, or even authorized trademark licensees who exploit the policy gap identified above. For instance, in a recent case a brand owner found that its Thailand distributor had been able to register a company name containing its registered trademark, and subsequently register such name as a domain name, without the trademark owner’s consent. Fortunately, the two parties had a strong existing business relationship as supplier and distributor; through amicable negotiation, the local distributor agreed to withdraw the disputed domain name. However, if both parties had insisted on their legitimate rights over the disputed name, the case would have had to proceed to court, as THNIC does not get involved in such disputes and offers no dispute resolution mechanisms. Navigating the options Trademark owners facing such a dispute have two options: initiating proceedings with the Intellectual Property
Read More
August 18, 2021
On July 15, 2021, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) announced a public hearing for their draft royal decree to regulate digital platforms (particularly e-commerce and e-service platforms) that provide services to people in Thailand. The draft royal decree is to be issued under the country’s Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001) and will be of particular concern to digital platform operators, which are defined as operators of intermediary digital platforms that provide a connection space for platform users to offer goods, services, or intangible property via a computer network, regardless of whether a contract is made on the digital platform. The key elements of the current draft royal decree are as follows: Extraterritorial scope. Operators of digital platforms located outside Thailand may be subject to the royal decree if the platform is intended to provide services to people in Thailand (evidenced by actions such as inclusion of Thai language, Thai currency, Thai domain names, and so on). Appointment of a local representative. A foreign digital platform operator that falls under the extraterritorial scope of the royal decree must appoint a local representative in Thailand, without limitation of liability. Notification requirements. Regulated digital platform operators must notify the ETDA of their operations via an online submission channel. The ETDA will also develop an online channel for consumers to check or verify the list of regulated digital platform operators. Further notification requirements and procedures are to be prescribed by the ETDA later. Platform-related requirements. The draft royal decree also sets various platform-related requirements, depending on the size of the digital platform operator (to be specified later). These requirements relate to the following: Terms and conditions; Content display; Content rating; Feedback mechanisms; Dispute settlement; Access and use of data; Control of advertisements; Notice and takedown measures; User verification processes; Suspension of
Read More