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

May 15, 2015

Class Actions Arrive in Thailand: Will the Law of Unintended Consequences Prevail?

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

In December of this year, amendments to the Civil Procedure Code allowing for class-action lawsuits will come into force. If the effects on the legal systems of other jurisdictions are good indicators, the Thai legal landscape will undergo a fundamental shift. This article will introduce class actions generally and then look at the new legislation and its potential impact.

Class actions are most prevalent in the US. They conjure up images of Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich, or late-night television commercials asking whether a product has injured “you or a loved one.” If you have ever been a plaintiff in a class action, you may have received an amount less than your actual damages, while the lawyers received substantial fees.

In short, class actions allow groups of similarly situated individuals, both legally and factually, to group together as a “class” of plaintiffs in a single lawsuit against one or more defendants. Class actions have been praised for increasing the efficiency of courts, providing certainty to both plaintiffs and defendants, and allowing “good” lawsuits to be filed where individual plaintiffs could not otherwise afford to litigate.

Criticisms of the system focus primarily on minimal awards to individual class members (sometimes just coupons for additional products from the defendant), while attorneys in the same case are awarded substantial legal fees.

Whether good or bad, it is difficult to dispute the fact that class actions have forced companies to modify their behavior. Just last year, the healthcare company Heel Group decided to exit the United States and Canadian markets to avoid multiple class-action lawsuits. Less extreme reactions include companies changing warning labels and providing additional disclosures in advertisements.

Class actions have become an alternative method of regulation outside of standard government regulatory regimes, particularly where state agencies lack the funding or mandate required for effective enforcement.

Thailand’s version of class actions has the same features as the majority of those in other jurisdictions, with some significant departures that are primarily procedural. One fundamental difference with jurisdictions such as the United States is that there is no jury system in Thailand. This is likely to result in more predictable and limited monetary awards.

Interestingly, though, Section 222/8 of the amended Civil Procedure Code provides for the following types of class actions:

  • torts (negligence);
  • breach of contract; and
  • cases regarding “laws respecting the environment, consumer protection, labor, securities and stock exchange, and trade competition.”

Typically, laws passed to protect the public interest, such as environmental laws, are enforced by government agencies and do not allow individuals a general right to bring lawsuits directly in the courts. The language of Section 222/8 appears to open the door wider for such “direct action” lawsuits and could further complicate the regulatory environment.

For example, Thailand’s own Erin Brockovich-style lawsuit concerned the contamination of Klity Creek in Kanchanaburi from a lead-mining operation. In that case, nine villagers joined together to bring a suit against a company for contaminating the creek under environmental laws.

The court ruled that the contamination had killed the villagers’ livestock and caused adverse health effects on the villagers. The court awarded the villagers THB 38 million in damages. We have no indication of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ fees but can safely assume they amounted to a mere fraction of the total damages.

The new class-action legislation authorizes a contingency fee or lawyers’ award for the plaintiffs’ lawyers of up to 30 percent of the total damages. In typical civil actions, plaintiffs’ lawyers are required to obtain legal fees and expenses directly from their clients, many of whom are indigent. The possibility of higher compensation is likely to result in more public interest and direct action lawsuits.

While the precise impact of class actions will only reveal itself through testing in the courts, what is clear is that all businesses with significant sales and operations in Thailand now face greater risks.

This increase in risk will likely manifest itself in higher insurance premiums for all, regardless of the level of actual operational risk of any particular business.

Those businesses involved in class actions, whether or not based on meritorious claims, will need to engage outside counsel to defend against these suits and will therefore face increased legal costs. For those considering investing in Thailand, the arrival of class actions may reduce Thailand’s attractiveness.

In conclusion, class actions in Thailand will allow commonly situated individuals to group together and directly protect their interests in court. However, these new rights will not come without costs borne by those doing business in Thailand, and possible impact on future investment.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 19, 2026
For the first time, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a consolidated list identifying all substances that have successfully passed its novel food safety evaluation process. The list is a step forward in regulatory transparency, but it also highlights a feature of the Thai regime that food companies often overlook: each approval is tied exclusively to the company that applied for it. A substance’s appearance on the list does not give other companies the green light to use it. This article examines the structure of Thailand’s novel food approval framework, the implications of applicant exclusivity, and the strategic choices it requires of food companies looking to bring novel ingredients to the Thai market. Thai FDA Food Safety Evaluation Framework Notification No. 376 of the Ministry of Public Health requires novel food substances to undergo a food safety assessment, with an exemption only for novel foods manufactured exclusively for export. The framework also encompasses “foods that do not qualify as novel foods” but which present characteristics warranting a safety evaluation, such as differing quality standards, increased serving sizes, or applications in specific food categories, where such changes affect consumption levels, nutritional value, or consumer safety. The recently published list of foods that passed the safety evaluation by the Thai FDA is structured by substance category and identifies the approved company (domestic manufacturer or importer), country of origin, substance name and trade name, approved purpose of use, and date of the Thai FDA’s approval notification certificate. A notable feature of Thailand’s novel food regime is that the approval result is tied exclusively to the company that submitted the application. Publication of the consolidated list does not constitute a general authorization to use the approved substances. The Thai FDA’s approval certificate specifies the approved conditions of use and the requirements
June 17, 2026
Thailand’s new labeling requirements for medical devices, which include for the first time a unique device identification (UDI) requirement for software as a medical device (SaMD), take effect on June 20, 2026. The Notification of the Ministry of Public Health regarding Criteria, Methods, and Conditions on Labeling and Instructions for Use for Medical Devices 2025, which replaces a similar notification from 2020, was published in the Government Gazette on December 22, 2025. To ensure clarity, modernity, and patient safety, the regulation requires domestic manufacturers and importers to provide labels and instructions for use (IFU) that are clearly legible, complete, and free of false or misleading claims. It also permits IFU to be provided in electronic format, such as via QR codes, websites, or other digital channels—directly relevant to SaMD, where physical labels are impractical and electronic presentation is the natural medium. The notification distinguishes two categories for labeling language. Home-use medical devices (for lay users outside healthcare facilities) must have labels and IFU in Thai. Professional-use medical devices may display labels and documentation in either Thai or English. This distinction is significant for SaMD developers: software intended for clinical professionals may use English-language interfaces and IFU, while consumer-facing health applications must provide Thai-language content. Labeling and UDI Requirements Labels and IFU must include, at a minimum: Product name and intended purpose Quantity or volume Name and address of domestic manufacturer or importer Thai FDA approval number Lot, version, or serial number Manufacturing date and expiry date For SaMD, the version number requirement is particularly relevant. The regulation also mandates display of a UDI code for SaMD in risk category 2 (moderate-risk), category 3 (moderate- to high-risk), and category 4 (high-risk), according to Thailand’s medical device risk classification system (which complies with the ASEAN Medical Device Directive and the EU
May 11, 2026
Thailand’s rise as a regional hub for luxury retail has influenced how market entry is structured and assessed across Southeast Asia. As brands consider establishing a presence in the market, regulatory and operational considerations form a key part of the overall entry assessment. Foreign Ownership Restrictions for Retailers Foreign investment in retail activities is subject to a relatively extensive regulatory framework, particularly in relation to foreign ownership and the approvals required under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Under the FBA, a company is generally regarded as foreign if 50% or more of its shares are held by non-Thai nationals, in which case the business is required to obtain a foreign business license (FBL) issued by the director-general of the Department of Business Development, with the approval of the Foreign Business Committee. The committee will not grant an FBL unless it is convinced the proposed business demonstrates unique characteristics such as a distinctive business model, innovative processes, specialized services or products, or a clear competitive differentiation that will benefit Thailand; constitutes a highly specialized business or requires specialized technology or expertise; and will not compete with Thai business operators who engage in the same business. The committee makes its decisions on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, which can make the licensing process less predictable in practice. However, there are also alternative pathways for consideration, including exemptions in specific circumstances. For example, foreign-owned businesses in Thailand with at least THB 100 million in registered capital are allowed to open five retail stores in the country. Some businesses may also be able to access preferential treatment under international agreements and treaties between Thailand and certain foreign states, subject to eligibility requirements. Structural and Business Model Challenges The determination of what constitutes a “retail store” may itself present
May 8, 2026
Thailand has liberalized its wine import regime, allowing, for the first time, multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brands. On March 27, 2026, the Ministry of Finance issued the Ministerial Regulation on the Importation of Alcoholic Beverages (No. 3) 2026, which waives the requirement to appoint a sole authorized agent for alcoholic beverages to be specified in notifications from the Excise Department. The Excise Department has already issued its first such notification, expressly exempting wine and sparkling wine made from grapes from the sole agent requirement. For all other types of alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer, tequila, spirits) the sole agent requirement remains in force, and applicants for importer licenses must provide evidence of exclusive distributorship issued by the manufacturer or brand owner. The exemption may be extended to other alcoholic beverage categories through future Excise Department notifications. Implications for Competition and Tourism The reform allows multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brand without routing through the brand owner’s designated exclusive importer, reducing monopolization and boosting competition. Excise Department Director-General Pornchai Thirawet noted that wine was chosen as the starting point because implementation is straightforward in this case and because domestic wine prices remain high—with increased competition expected to exert downward pressure on prices. More broadly, the reform is intended to lower market entry barriers, expand supply, and make wine more accessible to Thai consumers, while supporting Thailand’s position as a regional tourism hub. Product Quality Control and Loss of Sole Agent Accountability Under the previous framework, the designated importer bore full responsibility for the proper storage, handling, and distribution of wine and sparkling wine from importation to final sale. This arrangement helped ensure that products were maintained under appropriate conditions, including temperature control, light exposure, and humidity management, to preserve quality