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​ 

March 9, 2026
Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits. However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale. To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law. Potentially Liable Parties The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product” The
January 6, 2026
On December 30, 2025, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) notified digital marketplace operators of a consolidated list of “high‑risk products” that are subject to strict monitoring on digital platforms. The list was jointly prepared by the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to guide platform compliance in the initial phase of implementation of the Electronic Transaction Committee’s Notification on Other Measures for Marketplace for Goods with Specific Characteristics under Section 18(2) of the 2022 Royal Decree on Digital Platform Businesses Requiring Notification B.E.2568 (2025). The notice is addressed to operators of digital platform services that function as product marketplaces with specific characteristics laid out in the notification. The ETDA states that the TISI and the FDA are closely monitoring the high‑risk product categories on digital platforms, and the published list serves as the baseline reference for platform screening during the initial phase of the notification’s implementation. High‑Risk Product List The list aggregates categories of products that are illegal to sell online or are otherwise tightly regulated under Thai law, with an emphasis on health-related products, controlled substances, medical devices, and a wide range of industrial products that require certification or compliance with specified Thai Industrial Standards, as detailed below. Prohibited and tightly controlled health products. This includes all categories of modern medicines subject to control other than general household remedies; all categories of controlled herbal products except for over-the-counter herbal products; narcotics; psychotropic substances; and medical devices requiring use in medical facilities or a physician’s prescription. Selected industrial products requiring heightened controls. The list highlights dozens of TISI-regulated items commonly sold online. Examples include pacifiers, rice cookers, electrical wire, food wrap film, crayons, washing machines and dryers, air conditioners, electric cookers and air fryers, water heaters, microwave ovens, LED luminaires, hair dryers
December 30, 2025
On December 17, 2025, Laos’ Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) issued a notice introducing a new digital system that allows e-commerce businesses to obtain required certificates and licenses through an online, application-based platform. Notice No. 3988, which will take effect on February 1, 2026, introduces the E-Trust platform, a downloadable application that allows e-commerce businesses to remotely obtain acknowledgement certificates and business operating licenses. New Digital Registration Options Under the previous framework established by the Decree on E-commerce (2021), businesses were required to complete registration exclusively through paper-based submissions. The new system now offers businesses two registration options: Traditional paper-based process at the Division of E-commerce Management within the MOIC; or Electronic registration and renewal through the E-Trust platform. This change is expected to streamline procedures, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance accessibility for businesses operating outside Vientiane. The E-Trust platform facilitates compliance for both individuals and legal entities required to submit applications and renewals for required certificates and licenses. The development is particularly beneficial for businesses located in remote provinces, as it eliminates the need for physical travel and significantly accelerates processing times. Compliance Requirements and Penalties Businesses must obtain or renew the required certificates and licenses to avoid sanctions under the Decision on Fines and Other Measures for Violation of the Decree and Regulations on E-commerce (No. 2828/MOIC, dated November 11, 2025). Penalties for noncompliance may include monetary fines and other enforcement measures.
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations