GDPR vs. Thailand PDPA: Substantive Legal Comparison June 2025

Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) bears a structural resemblance to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), reflecting a shared emphasis on personal data rights, lawful processing, and accountability. However, significant differences exist in scope, enforcement, and practical implementation. Notably, Thailand’s legal framework is still evolving, with limited regulatory guidance and case law, which may pose interpretive challenges for organizations navigating compliance. This situation is exacerbated by the presence of criminal penalties for certain violations under the PDPA—a feature absent in the GDPR, raising potential concerns for both local and international businesses operating in Thailand. The table below highlights key distinctions between the two regimes to support risk assessment and compliance planning.

Legal Aspect

GDPR (EU)

PDPA (Thailand)

Enforcement Authority

Independent national data protection authorities

Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) under the Ministry of Digital Economy

Maximum Fines

Up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover

Up to THB 5 million per offense + criminal penalties including imprisonment of up to 1 year

Data Subject Rights

Comprehensive: access, rectification, erasure, restriction of processing, data portability, objection, withdrawal of consent, and protection from automated individual decision-making

Up to THB 5 million per offense + criminal penalties including imprisonment of up to 1 year

Right to Erasure

Fully enforceable under Art. 17

Recognized, but limited in practice

Consent Standard

Freely given, informed, specific, unambiguous (opt-in)

Similar standard, but less operational clarity, especially concerning the requirement for explicit consent for sensitive data

DPO Requirement

Mandatory for large-scale/public processing; role well-defined

Similar requirement covering sensitive data processing; guidance is limited

Cross-Border Transfers

Requires adequacy, SCCs, and BCRs

No adequacy list or its SCCs yet, but it recognizes SCCs under the GDPR, and ASEAN Model Contractual Clauses can be adopted

Profiling & Automation

Restricted with rights to object and human oversight

Not clearly regulated

Legal Grounds for Processing

6 bases: consent, contract, legal obligation, vital/public interest, legitimate interest

Private Right of Action

Yes, including class actions

Yes, but limited in scope and practice

Key Takeaways for Compliance Teams

  • PDPA aligns structurally with GDPR but is less developed in enforcement and interpretation.
  • Thai organizations may face criminal penalties for violations (unlike GDPR).
  • Cross-border data transfers under PDPA lack practical guidance.
  • Rights like objection to profiling are weaker under the PDPA.
  • Companies subject to both laws should follow the higher GDPR standard as best practice.

Authors

  • Supitchaya Akeyati is an associate at Formichella & Sritawat whose practice focuses on data privacy, telecommunications, media, and technology, corporate and commercial law, regulatory licensing, and foreign investment. She works with Thai and international clients on PDPA compliance, cross-border data governance, corporate matters, and regulatory issues affecting digital businesses and communications providers.
    Supitchaya has contributed to Thailand chapters published by Chambers and Partners and the International Comparative Legal Guides, covering technology transactions, digital business, data protection, and telecommunications and media regulation. She holds an LL.B. from the Faculty of Law at Prince of Songkla University.

  • John Formichella

    John Formichella is a founding partner of Formichella & Sritawat and leads the firm’s Technology, Media, and Telecommunications (TMT) group. He has more than 27 years of telecommunications and technology experience across Asia, including serving as Vice President and General Counsel of a NASDAQ-listed telecommunications company. His work focuses on international market-entry strategy, telecommunications infrastructure, spectrum policy, and cross-border TMT developments, working alongside the firm’s Thai-licensed lawyers on matters involving Thailand. Earlier in his career, he contributed to work concerning the telecommunications provisions of the proposed United States-Thailand Free Trade Agreement. He is admitted to practice law in Washington, D.C.