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​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only