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 Insights from the comparative study and stakeholder feedback are being consolidated to prepare draft guidance covering six core thematic areas (see the following section), intended to reflect both international standards and the practical realities of PDPA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

January 13, 2021
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) recently issued two notifications—one for life-insurance companies and another for insurance companies—establishing key criteria and requirements for insurance companies to manage risks relating to IT and cybersecurity. The notifications, entitled Notifications Re: Criteria for the Supervision and Management of Risks Relating to Information Technology for Life/Non-life Insurance Companies B.E. 2563 (2020) came into effect on January 1, 2021, and cover eight major aspects of IT risk management as detailed below. IT Governance Insurance companies are required to monitor and manage IT risks and cyber threats in accordance with the size, characteristics, complexity, and context of their business operations, and each company should have at least one director with knowledge of, or past experience in, the field of information technology. IT Project Management Insurance companies are required to develop a written framework for IT project management, covering at least the commencement, implementation, and control of the project, as well as the project closing and post-project auditing. Companies must also appoint a committee for supervising and monitoring IT projects. IT Security Insurance companies are required to institute a written IT security policy, which must be reviewed at least once a year or upon implementing any significant changes. The policy must be approved by the board of directors, or a relevant subcommittee appointed by the board of directors. In outsourcing IT activities to third-party service providers, or entering into any arrangement that allows business partners to connect to or access the company’s IT system, insurance companies are required to specify their own criteria and procedures for the selection of third-party service providers, enter into a written service agreement and a service level agreement with the third-party provider, and conform with other requirements under the notifications. Insurance companies will also be required to comply with the OIC’s forthcoming
Read More
January 8, 2021
At a meeting on December 21, 2020, the Thai Board of Investment (BOI) approved a series of stimulus packages aimed at encouraging local and foreign investment, as the government seeks to boost Thailand’s economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The additional investment incentives, which will be promoted by the BOI in the upcoming year, include a number of sector- and project-specific stimulus measures.   Additional Tax Incentives for Large-Scale Projects Projects in target industries with investment of at least THB 1 billion (approx. USD 33 million) over a 12-month period, starting from the issuance of the BOI promotion certificate, will be entitled to an additional 50% corporate income tax (CIT) deduction for a period of five years, calculated on top of the standard 5–8 year CIT exemptions offered under the normal BOI tax-incentive scheme. To obtain this special tax incentive, eligible projects may apply to the BOI from January 4 to December 30, 2021.   Stimulus Package for Digital Economy and Software Industry Projects that support digital technology adoption, such as software integration, artificial intelligence, machine learning, or big data analytics, may benefit from 50% CIT exemptions on profits generated from their existing BOI projects for an additional three years. Applications for the exemption must be submitted by the end of 2022.   Application Deadline Extensions for Special Economic Zones and Five Southern Provinces Measures relating to special economic zones cover more than 300 investment promotion categories, with both tax and non-tax incentives, including an additional tax incentive for target industries such as textiles, agriculture, home furniture, jewelry, and others. These incentives are available to projects located in the border areas of Thailand (i.e., the 10 special economic zones in the provinces of Chiang Rai, Kanchanaburi, Mukdahan, Nakhon Phanom, Narathiwat, Nong Khai, Sa Kaeo, Songkhla, Tak, and Trat), with the
Read More
December 22, 2020
John McCarthy, an American computer scientist and inventor, coined the term “artificial intelligence” (AI) in 1956, and is often called the father of artificial intelligence. Now, nearly a half century later, legal professionals recognize that AI is not just a buzzword for novel computer software but, with the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, it holds great potential for technology growth. The term AI followed from research that studied and developed concepts around “thinking machines.” Today, AI is generally accepted as a branch of computer science. It concerns the ability of computers to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence. Subsets of AI include machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and neural networking. Existing Use of AI in Legal Research So far, the legal profession’s utilization of AI pales in comparison to other sectors, according to a 2019 management consultancy study by Bain & Company. It found that only about 20 to 25 percent of legal departments embrace AI in at least one area of their work, while 40 percent of finance departments and 54 percent of human resources departments do so. A survey in 2017 (on research not associated with AI) by the American Bar Association found that attorneys spend, on average, 16.3 percent of their working hours conducting legal research. Despite the transition of legal research within the last century from using traditional hardcopy materials to computerized databases, to the adoption of online research within the past few decades, little has changed in the time investment, the survey said. With clients pressuring lawyers to reduce costs, leveraging AI to conduct legal research can save time and money. A 2018 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology  exemplified this point in referencing a bankruptcy lawyer who spent 10 hours searching for a
Read More