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

April 27, 2011

Draft Surrogacy Act Under Consideration

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recent headlines of a company offering surrogacy services in exchange for money have brought the issue of assisted reproductive technologies back into the public eye, shedding light on the fact that Thai law has not kept up with advancements in infertility treatment. Currently, couples in Thailand who wish to have a child, yet for whatever reason are unable to do so via natural methods, have limited options, adoption being the most common. But what about those couples who wish to have a child that is genetically theirs?

Assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and surrogacy are also options.  Parental legal rights and duties are set out in the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand, and adoption is outlined under the Child Adoption Act.  But while assisted reproductive technologies exist and are utilized in Thailand, the matter falls into a legal “grey area.”  Now a draft piece of legislation, the Surrogacy Act, seeks to specify the legal bases and add some much-needed clarity to the issue.

The Surrogacy Act has, in fact, been in the drafting process for several years; having already been passed by the Cabinet, it is still under review and awaiting approval of the Parliament.  Under the proposed legislation, legally married couples would be allowed to engage a surrogate mother to carry out pregnancy on their behalf.  These are some of the conditions that must be met:

  • The couple must be both mentally and physically prepared to become parents.
  • The surrogate mother must not be an ancestor or descendant of the social parents.
  • The surrogate mother must have previously delivered a child, and in the case she is married, the husband’s consent must also be granted.
  • An appraisal must be carried out according to the rules, procedures, and conditions as prescribed under the Surrogacy Act, which must cover environmental factors as well as potential diseases which could impact the newborn.

Most importantly, the Surrogacy Act sets out the rights of the social parents, the surrogate mother, and the newborn child.  Under present law, a child born through surrogacy is considered the legitimate child of the birth mother (and her husband, if legally married), meaning the social parents do not have any legal parental rights to the child.  The general method of dealing with this situation is, subsequent to delivery, for the prospective parents to go through the process of adoption.  But this of course entails a lengthy process in dealing with the related governmental authorities; and particularly for foreign couples engaging a Thai surrogate mother, burdensome time and expense.

Surrogacy arrangements have yet to be tested in the Thai courts, and an agreement or contract entering into a surrogacy arrangement before the Surrogacy Act becomes effective could be deemed to violate provisions of public order and/or good morals.

Based on the current draft wording of the bill, all the legal parental rights and duties will be conferred to the social parents without the need to go through the adoption process or proceed with other legally more dubious methods.  In addition, the Juvenile and Family Court is granted jurisdiction to hear cases involving any disputes related to parenthood as a result of surrogacy, which is a much-needed step in the direction of protecting the rights of prospective parents—for example, in case the birth mother reneges on a surrogacy arrangement and decides to keep the child for herself.

It should be noted that as it stands, commercial surrogacy is not explicitly illegal under Thai law.  However, the practice would be strictly prohibited if the Surrogacy Act passes.  No payments or compensation of any kind would be allowed to be made to the surrogate mother, the exception being those related to health maintenance costs at the time of pregnancy, delivery, and post-delivery although the criteria for such have yet to be established.

Under the new law, engaging in commercial surrogacy would entail heavy penalties—a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment and fine of up to 200,000 baht.  And both brokerage and advertising, whether for commercial benefit or not, would also be strictly prohibited, with violation resulting in a maximum of five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 100,000 baht.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More