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 Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder feedback are being consolidated to prepare draft guidance covering six core thematic areas (see the following section), intended to reflect both international standards and the practical realities of PDPA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

March 5, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a criminal complaint against a licensed digital asset broker, its overseas trading platform, and its executives for allegedly operating an unlicensed digital asset exchange targeting Thai customers. The case marks an escalation in the SEC’s enforcement efforts against unlicensed offshore platforms that attempt to serve Thai users through local licensed entities. Criminal Complaint On February 20, 2026, the SEC filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division against a local licensed digital asset broker, its overseas global trading platform, and its executives. The SEC alleges that the parties violated the Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree B.E. 2561 (2018) by cooperatively operating a digital asset exchange business on a cross-border basis since 2023 without the required SEC license. According to the SEC, the local broker promoted the overseas platform’s services to the public through Thai-language posts on social media channels, with services available exclusively to customers residing in Thailand. Access to the global platform was provided through the local broker’s website and mobile application. Customers who registered for the local broker’s services were automatically granted access to the global platform without having to undergo a separate identity verification process. The SEC also found that the local broker provided back-office system support services to the global platform. The SEC considers these activities to constitute joint operation of an unlicensed digital asset exchange. The former executives of the local broker are being held liable as the responsible persons during the relevant period. The SEC emphasized that the complaint initiates the criminal process, and the decision to prosecute or convict the accused parties will ultimately be made by law enforcement authorities and the criminal courts. Platform Blocking The SEC has also coordinated with the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to block public
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
February 26, 2026
Thailand is preparing to offer new tools for intellectual property enforcement as the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) recently released for public consultation a draft notification requiring social media platforms to verify user identities and conduct know-your-customer (KYC) checks on advertisers. The draft Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers, which is to be issued under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), as amended in 2025, primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes. However, its new obligations also provide IP owners with valuable tools to identify anonymous infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The draft notification imposes several verification requirements on social media platforms operating in Thailand. These requirements also strengthen IP rights holders’ ability to identify anonymous infringers, as platforms must: Verify user identities through registered phone numbers and link all accounts to verifiable identities. Conduct KYC checks on advertisers, including individuals, companies, and any third-party payers. Perform heightened identity checks for high-risk or repeat offenders before publishing advertisements. Promptly remove content flagged by the Anti-Technology Crime Division and prescreen advertisements for prohibited or high-risk content. How IP Owners Can Use This Notification for Enforcement The phone number–based verification requirement enables IP owners to work more effectively with enforcement authorities in tracing individuals or entities responsible for infringing content. The comprehensive advertiser KYC obligations, including mandatory disclosure of third-party payment sources, create a clear audit trail even when bad actors attempt to obscure their identity through intermediaries or shell accounts. This traceability is essential for pursuing damages and dismantling organized counterfeit operations. The ETDA is now considering adjustments to the draft notification after receiving comments during the public consultation period, which ended on February 2, 2026. Following finalization
Read More
February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More