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

July 17, 2015

Class Actions in Thailand – Predicting the Impact on Your Business

T-AB: Thai-American Business, Journal of the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand

The thought of class action litigation strikes fear in the heart of every consumer-facing business as well as their suppliers and service providers. Images of billion dollar awards keep business managers awake at night wondering when, not if, lightning will strike.

The most common view of class actions is through the lens of the American experience, where the legendary attorney fee awards have spawned a highly creative breed of lawyer and a cottage industry in identifying lucrative class action claims. Gone are the days when class actions were only brought for automobile defects and environmental disasters.

In the pastoral hills of the Kansai region of Japan, two breeds of four-legged delicacies graze alongside one another in lush green pastures: Kobe and Wagyu. Massaged and marbled, their cuts traverse the globe to satiate the palates of dignitaries and discerning foodies. But can anyone truly tell the difference?

Apparently, yes. A high-end steakhouse recently settled a class action brought against it for the egregious harm of titling a menu item “Kobe” when the beef they served was Wagyu. The cost: a potential exposure of USD 15, in the form of a cash voucher, for each class member. USD 15 isn’t worth litigating over, you say—or is it? After how many multiples does USD 15 start to hurt? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Herein lies the power and the risk of class actions.

Class actions are a numbers game where a group of plaintiffs suffering from even a small amount of harm can justify litigation, if there are enough of them. Classes of hundreds were surpassed by thousands and now we’re well into the millions of plaintiffs in a single lawsuit. Where are these numbers of plaintiffs coming from? These days, they’re coming from data, technology, and mass media.

Looking back, we should have seen that the collision of technology and class action was no less inevitable or preventable than the impending collision of our own Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy in a great cosmic ballet.

Predicting the Thailand Experience

But let’s plant our feet back onto terra firma—Thailand, to be precise. Is the sky falling? Will class actions cause entire industries to pull up their stakes and run for the hills? The answer is that it depends. The analysis doesn’t end there; we shouldn’t resign ourselves blindly to fate, like so many Wagyu to the slaughter.

Our first indications as to the impact of class actions in Thailand won’t come until early December this year, when the law goes into effect. Prior to that, the Supreme Court will likely issue more detailed procedural rules, which will enhance our predictive capabilities. We can also make some informed assumptions about how class actions will affect Thailand on the basis of the impact of class actions in other jurisdictions.

  • Assumption No. 1—Damages awards will be lower, on average, per class member, in Thailand than in the United States. To sum up this assumption in a word: jury. Thailand does not have a jury system—instead, the judges determine the facts and apply the law to assess damages. In addition, Thailand generally does not allow for punitive damages, emotional damages, and indirect damages. While some exceptions exist (e.g., product liability), Thai courts tend to be conservative in their awards.
  • Assumption No. 2—Thai courts will award substantially lower legal fee awards to plaintiffs’ attorneys than their American counterparts. A significant driver of class actions in the United States is legal fee awards to plaintiffs’ lawyers. While the new class action provisions allow for up to 30 percent of the total damages for attorney fees, this is still less—proportionally—than in the United States, where the fees start at 33 1/3 percent and go up from there. In addition, Thai courts have been reluctant to award much in the way of attorney fees to either plaintiffs or defendants, with typical awards for large claim amount cases being less than 1 percent of the total claim amount.

If these two assumptions hold, the impact of class actions will be limited in terms of incentives to bring the claims and direct financial impact to the defendants. It is important to note that financial damages are not the only remedies available to plaintiffs—product recalls, halting of sales, and other non-monetary remedies are a possibility.

Even with these assumptions in place, there is no question that the risk of litigation will increase for all. And with increased risk come increased insurance rates and other costs of doing business.

Predicting the Impact on Your Business

Not all businesses face the same risks. In fact, not all businesses in a particular industry face the same risks. A review of your operations, markets, employment practices, labeling and instructions, sales and marketing materials, compliance, and other areas will allow you to better predict how your business will be affected. This information has real value for investors, suppliers, customers, and—most importantly—management.

It is important for you to undertake an individualized analysis of the risk your business faces. The class action provisions specifically list the following types of actions eligible for class actions:

  1. Labor
  2. Environment
  3. Consumer Protection
  4. Product Liability
  5. Securities
  6. Contract
  7. Torts (Negligence)

But this is not an exhaustive or exclusive list, so you must determine what laws apply to your operation now and in the future. Looking forward, laws regarding the promotion of the Digital Economy are in the pipeline and all drafts include provisions for the protection of data. Most businesses collect customer data and store it in a digital format. If the trends in the United States are any indication of the types of lawsuits, we can expect this to be an additional source of potential cases.

Conclusion

No one can know the precise impact that class actions will have in Thailand until the first few waves of cases wind their way through the system. This doesn’t mean that we should bury our heads in the sand and hope we never end up as defendants. We are surrounded by information that will allow us to make a prediction to measure, then manage, this new source of business risk.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2025
Four of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Phnom Penh have authored the Cambodia chapter of Labor and Employment Disputes 2026, the latest edition of Lexology Panoramic’s global guide to handling labor and employment disputes. The chapter provides practical insights on a wide range of dispute resolution issues, including: Pre-action considerations: key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service, defendants and legal personality, types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties, consolidating proceedings, class and collective actions, evidence, witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: availability, requirements Trial: hearings conduct and time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting, elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: available types, requirements and expectations, enforcement Collective employment and labor rights: enforcement and standing Remedies and enforcement: available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: procedure, time frames, other means of challenge Updates and trends: recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The full Cambodia chapter is available for download below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand and Vietnam chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Labor and Employment Disputes 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that