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 Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder feedback are being consolidated to prepare draft guidance covering six core thematic areas (see the following section), intended to reflect both international standards and the practical realities of PDPA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​ 

April 3, 2026
On March 16, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security released a draft version of a new Decree on the Prevention and Combating of Cybercrime and High-Tech Crime to replace the currently effective Decree 25/2014/ND-CP. In the draft, the ministry has proposed a comprehensive regulatory framework aimed at addressing violations occurring within the cybersecurity domain, including measures related to intellectual property. Acts of Online IP Infringement Article 9 of the draft decree notably introduces specific provisions addressing online intellectual property infringement, with detailed lists of acts considered to constitute infringement in the online environment. Copyright and related rights infringement includes: Uploading or sharing works, performances, sound recordings, video recordings, broadcasts, computer programs, software, research, documents, theses, or other intellectual creations on digital platforms without the consent of the rights holder. Unauthorized livestreaming of copyrighted television programs, sporting events, or artistic performances. Uploading, sharing, storing, transmitting, or providing links to infringing works or digital content via websites, social networks, applications, or digital platforms. Providing or using software, tools, devices, or access codes to circumvent technological protection measures or evade lawful control mechanisms implemented by rights holders. Using artificial intelligence (AI) tools to replicate the ideas or structure of another person’s work without significant new creativity or without proper attribution, thereby causing damage to the original author. Industrial property infringement includes: Manufacturing, trading, advertising, or distributing counterfeit goods bearing counterfeit trademarks, geographical indications, or industrial designs, as well as goods infringing industrial property rights through online platforms. Unauthorized registration, appropriation, or use of domain names, account names, or digital identifiers that create confusion regarding the rights holder or the origin of goods or services. Producing, using, or offering for sale products containing all or part of a patented invention via online platforms. Advertising or introducing products with technical features or characteristics identical
Read More
April 3, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has established a comprehensive governance framework for the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in the capital markets. The framework provides guidance to capital market business operators on understanding the risks associated with AI/ML implementation and adopting appropriate practices to build public confidence in Thailand’s capital markets. While the guidelines are principle-based rather than prescriptive, they reflect the SEC’s expectations for responsible AI/ML governance and are likely to inform supervisory activities and industry standards going forward. Scope The framework applies to capital market business operators supervised by the SEC. This includes, for example, securities and derivatives firms, asset management companies, mutual fund and private fund managers, investment advisors and investment consultants (including robo-advisory service providers), derivatives intermediaries, and other licensed intermediaries and market operators in the Thai capital markets that deploy AI/ML in their operations. Core Principles of the Guidelines The framework is presented as a best-practice manual rather than prescriptive regulation, providing guidance that regulated entities may apply to their AI/ML governance and risk management as appropriate. While currently nonbinding, the guidelines signal the SEC’s expectations for the sector, particularly in relation to other binding SEC regulations such as those covering IT risk management and market conduct. The guidelines name four core principles for AI/ML deployment: Fairness: Design and develop AI/ML with consideration for fairness, equality, and social diversity to prevent discrimination against individuals or groups. Legal and ethical compliance: Ensure AI/ML use aligns with applicable laws, ethical standards, and organizational values and policies. Accountability: Establish clear responsibility—both internally and externally—for AI/ML activities and outcomes. Transparency: Provide adequate disclosure to users about AI/ML use, including explainability of decisions and traceability of activities. AI/ML Best Practices The guidelines prescribe best practices across four stages of the AI/ML lifecycle, as described below.
Read More
April 2, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) enforcement has entered a new phase, and the insurance industry is squarely in the regulatory spotlight. The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) considers insurers “large-scale” processors of sensitive data—including health records, financial information, and biometric data—making the sector a focal point for enforcement action. In August 2025 alone, the PDPC issued administrative fines totaling THB 21.5 million, and fines for individual violations have ranged from THB 50,000 to THB 2 million. The PDPC has also deployed its “Eagle Eye Crawler,” an AI-driven surveillance tool that monitors websites around the clock for data leaks and noncompliant privacy notices. This article highlights the key regulatory developments directly affecting insurers and outlines practical steps toward compliance. What Has Changed: OIC and PDPC Alignment The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has synchronized its sector-specific rules with the PDPA through the Notification on Customer Personal Data Protection (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025). The combined effect of the PDPC’s general enforcement push and the OIC’s sectoral guidance creates four critical compliance areas for insurers. Consent unbundling. Consent for marketing must be strictly separated from the core insurance contract; bundling marketing consent into the policy application is no longer permissible. Agent and intermediary oversight. Insurance intermediaries are generally classified as data processors, meaning that insurers—as data controllers—must provide specific written instructions and security protocols to all agents and brokers. A 2026 enforcement trend shows controllers being held liable for the “weak security” of their vendors and downstream processors. Enhanced privacy notices. Insurers must provide a summary privacy notice alongside the full policy, plainly stating categories of data, purposes, lawful bases, disclosure recipients, cross-border transfers, retention periods, data subject rights, and easy marketing opt-out channels. DPO registration and ROPA. All organizations involved in “regular or systematic monitoring of data subjects on
Read More
March 30, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems. These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms. The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations. Applicability The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage: Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below. Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged. Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described
Read More