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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a