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​ 

May 2, 2025
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the latest edition of Doing Business in Thailand, a Q&A-style guide from Thomson Reuters Practical Law that offers an overview of key legal considerations for companies operating in jurisdictions worldwide. The contribution outlines the country’s legal and regulatory framework for foreign investment and business operations and reflects the latest legislative developments. The chapter addresses the following core topics: Legal system: Structure of the courts and the codified nature of Thai law. Foreign investment: Business restrictions under the Foreign Business Act, sector-specific regulations, exchange control rules, and investment incentives. Business vehicles: Overview of partnerships, private and public limited companies, and other legal entities. Employment: Labor protections, employment contracts, foreign worker requirements, and termination procedures. Tax: Corporate and personal income tax, indirect taxes, and tax obligations for residents and non-residents. Intellectual property: Registration and enforcement of patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights. Data protection: Key provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act and related compliance obligations. Competition law: Regulatory framework under the Trade Competition Act. Anti-bribery and corruption: Relevant legislation and enforcement mechanisms. E-commerce and digital business: Legal regime for online transactions and digital platforms. Marketing and advertising: Consumer protection laws and regulations affecting advertising and marketing practices. Product regulation and liability: Safety standards, liability regimes, and roles of enforcement authorities. Practical Law, a legal reference resource from Thomson Reuters, publishes a range of guides for hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. The insurance and reinsurance guide is a valuable resource for legal practitioners, covering numerous jurisdictions worldwide. To view the latest version of the guide, please visit the Practical Law website and enroll in the free Practical Law trial to gain full access.
April 10, 2025
After making revisions to the initial draft notification released in November 2024, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released an updated draft Notification on Additional Obligations for Digital Platform Service Operators of Online Marketplaces for Goods with Specific Characteristics under Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022) B.E. … . A focus group session was also held to gather feedback from business operators. Below is a summary of key provisions in the new draft. Unchanged Items Some key concerns that remain unchanged from the previous version of the draft notification include the following: Offshore business operators running online marketplaces that act as intermediaries for the sale or exchange of goods and provide facility services for the sale of goods (referred to as “specific marketplace operators” in the draft) are required to establish a local entity in Thailand. However, the criteria for determining which operators are specific marketplace operators are still under discussion due to feedback from business operators. Specific marketplace operators must submit a compliance report to the ETDA along with their annual report each year. Specific marketplace operators must verify that “business users” (e.g., merchants) provide complete details about goods in accordance with product standardization requirements. Removed Obligations The updated draft notification has removed specific marketplace operators’ obligations to: Conduct Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) verification of business users before onboarding them on their platforms. Submit a registry of business users’ information to the ETDA. Retain business users’ information for a specified retention period. Implement measures to filter reviews of products subject to specific standards. Revisions Key revisions made to the draft notification include the following: The effective date has been extended to 120 days after the notification’s publication in the Government Gazette,
February 23, 2025
On January 6, 2025, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 05/2025/ND-CP amending and supplementing Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP detailing the Law on Environmental Protection (“Decree 05”). Decree 05 came into effect immediately upon issuance and provides several changes to the regulations governing extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) for applicable manufacturers and importers, outlining their obligations concerning the recycling and treatment of discarded products and packages. (See our previous article on Vietnam’s EPR regulations here.) Outlined below are some critical amendments in Decree 05. Entities Subject to EPR Regulations Previously, Decree 08 limited the responsibility for recycling to manufacturers and importers of products and packaging specified in statutory lists. Decree 05 expands this scope by also including entities responsible for the quality and labeling of the regulated products and goods in Vietnam. Decree 05 inherits the regulations from Decree 08 that manufacturers and importers, if they produce and import products and packaging as stipulated by law, must fulfill their responsibility to recycle or support waste treatment activities. However, Decree 05 amends the lists of products/packaging that must be recycled or undergo waste treatment, and new products/packaging and recycling methods. Notably, rechargeable batteries (including those used in vehicles or for electrical and electronic devices) have been added to the list of regulated products and self-propelled vehicles and construction machinery have been removed from the list. Decree 05 also not only streamlines the recycling methods required for each type of product/packaging, but also removes the minimum requirement on the mass of products/packaging that must be recovered when recycling. Manufacturers and importers now have more flexibility in selecting recycling methods that are more suitable for actual recycling conditions in Vietnam. Decree 05 has revised the cases of exemption from recycling and waste treatment obligations, clarifying that both packaging manufacturers and importers with annual product
November 18, 2024
A new notification on required labeling and packaging for alcoholic beverages was published in Thailand’s Government Gazette on November 8, 2024, taking full effect the following day. The notification (Notification of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Committee Re: Criteria, Methods, and Conditions for Packaging of Alcoholic Beverages and Warning Statements of Alcoholic Beverages Both Produced Domestically and Imported into Thailand 2024) essentially reaffirms a mandatory requirement for packaging and warning statements for alcoholic beverages, which echoes existing regulations from 2009 and 2017. Under the authority of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act B.E. 2551 (2008) (ABCA), the notification reinforces the Alcoholic Beverage Control Committee’s objective of promoting consumer awareness through standardized warning labels. The notification addresses the following key aspects: Packaging definitions. The notification defines packing-related terms for the first time under the ABCA. These terms include (1) packaging, (2) containers (also known as primary packaging), and (3) outer packaging (secondary packaging). Packaging requirements. Containers for alcoholic beverages produced or imported for sale in Thailand must be at least 0.175 liters each. Warning statements. Although alcoholic beverages are classified as food under the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the notification exempts alcoholic beverages from general food labeling requirements prescribed in the Food Act. Instead, it mandates that the following warning statements be prominently displayed: Sale of liquor to persons under 20 years old is prohibited; Drinking reduces driving ability; and Not suitable for persons under 20 years old. Format. The notification specifies that these warning statements must be written in Thai, in bold characters, with a minimum type size of five millimeters. The warning must be enclosed in a box that contrasts with the label background and surrounding content. Exemptions. Certain products, such as alcoholic beverages imported as samples or otherwise not intended for commercial sale, are exempt from the warning