On August 13, 2024, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification on the Criteria for Personal Data Deletion, Destruction, and De-identification in the Government Gazette, taking effect on November 11, 2024. Most of the content remains unchanged from the June 2024 draft of the legislation that was released for public comment. Only minor amendments have been made, as outlined below: Data controllers must respond to data subjects’ requests to delete, destroy, or de-identify personal data, including any copies or backups, without delay and within 90 days of receiving the request. This timeframe has been extended from the previous draft, which allowed only 60 days. In deleting, destroying, or de-identifying personal data, the data controller must ensure that no one is able to recover or reverse personal data to enable the direct or indirect identification of the data subject by any means that could reasonably be expected. If the data controller cannot fulfill the request within the 90-day period, it must take measures to ensure that the personal data is made difficult to collect, use, or disclose until the personal data can be deleted, destroyed, or de-identified according to the notification. In such cases, appropriate organizational, technical, and physical measures must be implemented to protect the data, meeting the criteria set forth by the notification. One newly added provision allows data controllers to delete, destroy, or de-identify a data subject’s personal data using a different method than the one requested by the data subject, provided they inform the data subject of the alternative method. However, this is not allowed when the data subject exercises this right on the grounds that the personal data has been unlawfully collected, used or processed, and there are no grounds to reject the request. In relation to the de-identification or anonymization of personal

The Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) of Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) has announced the first administrative fine under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). A major private company was fined THB 7 million for noncompliance with specific PDPA requirements, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of personal data to a call center gang (phone scam fraudsters). Key Findings of Noncompliance The PDPC determined that there were three key violations of specific requirements of the PDPA: Failure to appoint a data protection officer (DPO): Despite processing personal data for over 100,000 individuals as part of its core operations, the company did not appoint a DPO. Inadequate security measures: The company lacked the required security measures, leading to a data breach involving a call center gang, causing widespread damage. Delayed data breach notification: The company did not notify authorities of the data breach within the required timeframe and failed to address the breach promptly, making it impossible to remedy the situation. In addition to the monetary fine, the PDPC, along with the PDPA’s Expert Committee, issued a corrective order requiring the company to undertake the following actions and notify the Office of the PDPC of the relevant correction measures within seven days of receiving the order: Implement up-to-date security measures: The company must improve its current security measures to prevent future breaches and ensure that the security measures are up-to-date with changing technologies. Raise awareness of personnel: The company must provide training to relevant personnel to ensure awareness of data compliance and protection practices. This significant administrative action establishes a precedent for addressing data breaches in both governmental and commercial sectors in Thailand. It also confirms the importance of PDPA compliance, particularly the need for robust security measures, timely breach notifications, and the appointment of

The need for privacy and security has grown in tandem with the rapid proliferation of internet-enabled technologies. This is a major concern for consumers and individuals, and governments are increasingly mindful of online threats to their national security and their citizens. All of this represents an imposing challenge for companies—especially now that technology has enabled them to operate with relative ease across jurisdictions throughout the world.

In March 2024, a Thai court of first instance handed down a decision in a personal data protection case against an insurance company in Thailand. The landmark ruling has important implications for the disclosure of special categories of personal data. The case concerned an individual, acting as the plaintiff, who filed a claim against an insurance company, as a data controller, and its representatives, for collecting, using, and disclosing the results of the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level test, along with a photo of the plaintiff taking the test, without explicit consent, resulting in his insurance claim being rejected. The company also disclosed the data to the insured party, who is the plaintiff’s family member, causing the plaintiff to suffer reputational damage, discrimination, humiliation, and ill treatment. Since results of a blood alcohol level test are considered a special category of personal data pursuant to section 26 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the plaintiff filed the claim with the criminal court, requesting that the criminal penalties under the PDPA and the Penal Code be imposed on the defendants, and that the defendants delete or destroy the plaintiff’s personal data. The insurance company argued that it had disclosed the test results and the photograph to the plaintiff’s family member—as the insured under the insurance agreement—for the purpose of informing the insured of the rejection of the insurance claim. Considering these facts and reasons, the criminal court ruled that the processing of this special category of personal data was necessary for the defense of the insurance company’s legal claims pursuant to section 26(4) of the PDPA, and therefore, explicit consent was not required. As a result, the criminal court dismissed the case. Key Takeaways While this case was dismissed, it indicates that explicit consent is not the