Mahanakorn Partners Group Co | View firm profile
INTRODUCTION
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) is an important framework governing how businesses handle personal data. Compliance with the PDPA is essential for organizations to avoid legal risks, financial penalties, and reputational damage. This article provides an overview of the key compliance requirements, common challenges, and best practices businesses should adopt to ensure compliance to the PDPA
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF DATA CONTROLLERS
One of the critical areas of compliance is the obligation of Data Controllers when responding to a Data Subject’s request for the deletion, destruction, or anonymization of data. The PDPA requires that Data Controllers act promptly, normally within 30 days, extendable for an additional 30 days if necessary. If immediate deletion is not technically feasible, interim risk mitigation measures must be taken. Anonymization is required when deletion is not possible, ensuring the data can no longer be linked to the subject. Pseudonymization, while an added safeguard, does not replace the need for full anonymization. These measures are consistent with the PDPA’s principles of data minimization and security.
CHALLENGES TO PDPA COMPLIANCE
Businesses face major obstacles in achieving PDPA compliance. A primary challenge is identifying and mapping personal data within an organization. Many companies struggle with limited resources, making it difficult to implement effective compliance measures and employee training. Integrating PDPA requirements into existing IT systems can also require significant modifications. In addition, businesses must categorize personal data into general personal data (e.g. names, contact information) and sensitive personal data (e.g. health data), the latter of which requires more stringent safeguards and explicit legal justification for processing. Establishing a legal basis for data processing, whether through consent, contractual necessity, or legal obligation, is necessary for compliance.
Collection of criminal records data
Under Thailand’s PDPA and supporting regulations, including the PDPC Notification dated January 8, 2024, the collection of personal data related to criminal records is strictly regulated. Data Controllers may only gather such information if explicitly required by law or with the Data Subject’s express consent. This applies to use cases such as employment background checks, licensing eligibility assessments, or other legally mandated activities. To ensure compliance, organizations must maintain clear documentation detailing the purpose of the data collection and implement stringent security measures to safeguard this sensitive information, as required by Article 26 of the PDPA.
Cross-Border Data Transfers
Transfer of personal data outside Thailand requires compliance with PDPA regulations. The receiving country must have comparable data protection standards. In absence of such standards, companies must implement binding corporate rules (BCRs) for intra-group transfers or rely on contractual clauses and other safeguards. All transfers must comply with Sections 28 and 29 of the PDPA, which outline legal bases such as consent or contractual necessity. Companies must also conduct risk assessments and implement risk mitigation strategies to ensure compliance with data transfer regulations.
Common PDPA Implementation Mistakes
Many businesses struggle with PDPA implementation due to common oversights in consent management, documentation, and security controls. One major issue is the failure to obtain explicit and informed consent, often relying on pre-checked boxes instead of clear affirmative action from users. Poor record-keeping and lack of comprehensive data handling documentation can hinder compliance efforts and make it difficult to demonstrate adherence during audits. Additionally, weak access controls and inadequate encryption measures increase vulnerability to data breaches. A lack of staff training further exacerbates the issue, leading to inconsistent compliance practices across different departments. Another critical mistake is insufficient oversight of third-party data processors, which can expose businesses to significant financial and legal risks if these vendors fail to comply with PDPA regulations.
SUSTAINING COMPLIANCE AND KEY LESSONS FROM THE JIB CASE
To maintain PDPA compliance without excessive administrative burden, companies should integrate compliance into daily operations through automation. Automated consent management, centralized data handling, and regular audits can streamline processes and improve compliance. In addition, ongoing employee training and the development of incident response plans can help businesses stay prepared for potential data breaches and regulatory changes. Seeking expert guidance can further support ongoing compliance efforts.
The JIB case highlights the severe repercussions of failing to comply with the PDPA. As one of Thailand’s leading IT distributors, JIB faced a 7-million-Baht fine due to insufficient security measures, delays in reporting data breaches, and the absence of a legally required Data Protection Officer (DPO). In response, the PDPC ordered JIB to revamp its data protection framework within 30 days, strengthen security protocols, and submit weekly progress reports. This case serves as a critical reminder of the need for proactive compliance to prevent financial penalties and reputational damage.
CONCLUSION
Ensuring compliance with Thailand’s PDPA is essential for businesses to safeguard personal data, avoid legal repercussions, and maintain customer trust. By implementing proactive data protection measures, integrating compliance into daily operations, and staying informed about regulatory updates, organizations can effectively navigate the complexities of the PDPA. The JIB case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of robust data security practices and the consequences of non-compliance.