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​ 

November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
November 13, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2026, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This annual guide offers comparative analysis of franchise laws and regulations across jurisdictions worldwide, providing practical insights for businesses and legal practitioners operating in the global franchise sector. Each country chapter in the 12th edition follows a Q&A format covering key aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Sustainability commitments Electronic signatures and document retention Current developments in the franchise sector The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, provides an in-depth overview of the legal landscape for franchising and franchising-related activities in Thailand. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
November 12, 2025
Thailand’s Customs Department has announced the cancellation of the longstanding de minimis exemption, which waives import duties on goods valued at THB 1,500 or less, as of January 1, 2026. This policy shift will directly impact e-commerce, logistics, and retail sectors, and will have wide-ranging implications for any company involved in cross-border trade with Thailand. Background Under current regulations, imported goods with a customs value (cost, insurance, and freight, or “CIF”) of THB 1,500 or less are exempt from import duties. This has been a cornerstone of the cross-border e-commerce model, allowing for the duty-free import of millions of small parcels. Under the new policy effective January 1, 2026, all imported goods, regardless of value, will be subject to assessment for import duties upon entry into Thailand. The stated rationale for this change is to create fair competition for Thai small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which must pay VAT and other costs on their goods, putting them at a price disadvantage against foreign sellers who utilize the de minimis loophole. Business Implications This policy change will create new costs, compliance burdens, and operational challenges. For foreign e-commerce sellers and platforms: The most direct impact will be the addition of import duties to low-value items. Assuming the costs are passed on to the consumer, the higher prices and potentially more complex or slower customs clearance processes could lead to increased cart abandonment and reduced consumer demand. Businesses should review their pricing models and develop a clear strategy for calculating, declaring, and paying these new duties. For logistics providers and customs brokers: The administrative burden will be considerable. Carriers that previously handled millions of nondutiable parcels will now be required to process them for duty assessment and collection. This may necessitate new IT systems and streamlined processes to avoid delays at
October 24, 2025
Thailand currently lacks a specific franchise act. Consequently, the legality of any franchise agreement is determined by its compliance with various existing laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Code, the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2530 (1997). Thailand is a freedom-to-contract jurisdiction. This allows for a high degree of flexibility and autonomy in contractual arrangements, provided that the terms do not violate any laws or public policy and do not fall under the scope of unfair contract terms. Given this, the requirement for fairness in franchise agreement terms often leads to uncertainty, but decisions from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) can provide guidance on whether specific contentious terms are in fact fair.  One issue worth examining in this light is the inclusion of terms on nonrefundable franchise fees and strict purchasing conditions. Franchise Fee: Unfair to Refuse Refund? Nonrefundable franchise fees represent a significant upfront investment for franchisees, often becoming a point of contention if the franchise relationship deteriorates or the franchisor ceases operations. Their fairness and enforceability are frequently scrutinized by regulatory bodies like the TCCT, highlighting the critical balance between contractual freedom and franchisee protection. Faced with one such case, the TCCT considered whether it was unfair for the franchisor to refuse to refund the franchise fee after the franchisor ceased operations.  The franchisee had entered into a service agreement on August 2, 2021, and begun operating on October 9, 2021. However, by November 21, 2023, the franchisee was notified that the system would be shut down for maintenance, and by December 26, 2023, the franchisor announced the cessation of operations due to financial losses. The franchisee then requested a refund of the franchise fee. Unfortunately for the franchisee, the TCCT found that the franchisor’s