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​ 

December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations