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

March 9, 2026

EV Liability under Thailand’s Product Liability Law

Over the past several years, numerous automobile manufacturers have brought electric vehicles (EVs) to the market and received positive feedback from consumers in Thailand and around the world. EVs have gained popularity due to their lower maintenance costs, reduced energy expenses, and environmental benefits.

However, reports have emerged of EVs causing problems such as battery fires, autopilot malfunctions leading to accidents, and safety systems such as brakes engaging automatically under inappropriate conditions. Even when these situations do not cause injury to drivers or passengers, they raise significant concerns for EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand. These problems may seriously impact businesses if the products are identified as unsafe under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (PLA), officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act. Under this law, authorities or courts can order business operators to recall products from the market or prohibit their export, import, or sale.

To manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for damages due to an unsafe product under the PLA, EV business operators should be aware of the scope of the law.

Potentially Liable Parties

The PLA identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators—both individuals and entities—as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be held liable under the law. In the EV context, this could include vehicle manufacturers, battery suppliers, software developers whose systems are integrated into the vehicle, and local importers or distributors. Specifically, the PLA covers:

  • Manufacturers or hirers
  • Importers
  • Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified
  • Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements associated with the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be perceived as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer

Definition of “Product” and “Unsafe Product”

The PLA defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. EVs and their components, including battery packs and onboard software systems, fall within this definition. Real estate and services are excluded from the PLA, though real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code and, in some circumstances, by the Consumer Protection Act.

The PLA defines an “unsafe product” as any product that causes or may cause damage or injury due to a manufacturing defect, design defect, or lack of clear warning, instructions, or other information about usage, maintenance, or preservation of the product. For EVs, this could encompass a broad range of issues, such as a battery cell defect that creates a fire risk, an algorithmic flaw in an autopilot or automatic braking system, or insufficient warnings about charging safety or battery maintenance. If an unsafe product causes damage or injury to the consumer who purchased it, regardless of whether the damage was caused intentionally or negligently, every PLP will be jointly liable for the damages sustained by the consumer, with few exceptions.

Burden of Proof and Limitations on Liability Waivers

Under the PLA, aggrieved parties only need to prove that they suffered damage or injury from the PLP’s product and that they had used and maintained the product properly. The aggrieved party does not need to prove which PLP caused the damage or injury—a significant consideration in the EV industry, where vehicles incorporate components and software from multiple suppliers across complex international supply chains.

PLPs cannot avoid liability by entering into an agreement with the consumer that waives or limits PLPs’ liability in advance.

Defenses Available to PLPs

PLPs facing claims under the PLA can avoid liability if they can prove one of the following:

  • The product was not unsafe.
  • The plaintiff was aware that the product was unsafe.
  • The plaintiff misused the product despite clear information and warnings.

In the EV context, the third defense underscores the importance of providing consumers with thorough and accessible documentation on matters such as charging procedures, battery care, and the correct operation of assisted-driving features.

Claims and Remedies

The PLA provides two methods through which an aggrieved party can bring a claim: filing a lawsuit in court or filing a complaint with the Consumer Protection Board.

Alternatively, a foundation or association authorized by the Consumer Protection Board may file the complaint on behalf of the aggrieved consumer or party. If the foundation or association submits the complaint to the relevant court, court fees are waived, though fees ordered by the court in its final judgment remain payable.

If court determines that an aggrieved party was damaged by an unsafe product, the court will award damages. These damages are not restricted to those set out in the Civil and Commercial Code but may include other forms of compensation that are unusual under Thai law, at the court’s discretion. For example, the court may award damages for mental pain and suffering as well as actual bodily harm and harm to property. If the unsafe product caused a person’s death, the court may award damages for the mental pain and suffering of the immediate family. If the PLP was aware, or should have been aware, that the product was unsafe—or acted with gross negligence—the court may award punitive damages of up to twice the actual damages.

Administrative Enforcement

The Consumer Protection Board or the relevant court may order business operators to recall, destroy, or cease selling any unsafe product if the business operator fails to comply with the PLA’s requirements. For EV operators, a recall order could have substantial commercial consequences given the complexity and cost of EV components, making proactive compliance a sound business priority.

Outlook

Thailand’s growing EV market brings significant opportunity but also meaningful legal exposure under the PLA. The law protects consumers from unsafe products by simplifying procedures and reducing the burden on consumers seeking to bring an action, while leaving only a few avenues for PLPs to avoid liability. EV manufacturers, importers, and sellers operating in Thailand should carefully assess their potential liabilities before bringing a product to market.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 13, 2025
The Contract Committee of Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board has issued a notification updating the stipulation that any sale of a new vehicle or motorcycle requiring an upfront deposit from the consumer for reservation purposes is now classified as a contract-controlled business. Titled “Requiring Reservation Agreements for New Vehicles and Motorcycles to be Contract-Controlled Businesses B.E. 2567,” the notification takes effect on February 19, 2025, and supersedes the previous notification from 2008, which applied only to “vehicles” (excluding motorcycles). Key changes and requirements introduced by the new notification include: Inclusion of electric vehicles and motorcycles. The notification now extends beyond traditional vehicles powered by combustion engines to include those powered by electricity. It also covers motorcycles powered by both combustion engines and electricity. Definition of order deposit. An order deposit is defined as any money or benefit provided by the consumer to reserve a vehicle or motorcycle. It is distinct from a security deposit and is solely for reservation purposes. Standardized order deposit agreement. Order deposit agreements must be in Thai and clearly visible and readable. Business operators must use the template prescribed by the notification to ensure compliance with the standardized terms and conditions. This extends to both physical and electronic agreements and includes transactions facilitated by digital platform providers. Specification of delivery date. Agreements must specify the exact date, month, and year for delivery, unlike the previous requirement for only an estimated delivery date. Detailed deposit collection description. Agreements must outline the method of deposit collection, providing more specificity than the general description required previously. Prohibited terms. Agreements must not include: Limitation or exclusion of liability for the business operator’s faults. Provisions allowing the business operator to change the delivery date or conditions to the consumer’s detriment. Provisions allowing the business operator to terminate the
November 18, 2024
A new notification on required labeling and packaging for alcoholic beverages was published in Thailand’s Government Gazette on November 8, 2024, taking full effect the following day. The notification (Notification of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Committee Re: Criteria, Methods, and Conditions for Packaging of Alcoholic Beverages and Warning Statements of Alcoholic Beverages Both Produced Domestically and Imported into Thailand 2024) essentially reaffirms a mandatory requirement for packaging and warning statements for alcoholic beverages, which echoes existing regulations from 2009 and 2017. Under the authority of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act B.E. 2551 (2008) (ABCA), the notification reinforces the Alcoholic Beverage Control Committee’s objective of promoting consumer awareness through standardized warning labels. The notification addresses the following key aspects: Packaging definitions. The notification defines packing-related terms for the first time under the ABCA. These terms include (1) packaging, (2) containers (also known as primary packaging), and (3) outer packaging (secondary packaging). Packaging requirements. Containers for alcoholic beverages produced or imported for sale in Thailand must be at least 0.175 liters each. Warning statements. Although alcoholic beverages are classified as food under the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979), the notification exempts alcoholic beverages from general food labeling requirements prescribed in the Food Act. Instead, it mandates that the following warning statements be prominently displayed: Sale of liquor to persons under 20 years old is prohibited; Drinking reduces driving ability; and Not suitable for persons under 20 years old. Format. The notification specifies that these warning statements must be written in Thai, in bold characters, with a minimum type size of five millimeters. The warning must be enclosed in a box that contrasts with the label background and surrounding content. Exemptions. Certain products, such as alcoholic beverages imported as samples or otherwise not intended for commercial sale, are exempt from the warning
November 1, 2024
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2025 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed analysis of franchise laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter of the guide follows a Q&A format, organized into key sections covering critical aspects of franchise law and operations, including: Relevant legislation and rules governing franchise transactions Business organization options for franchised operations Competition law considerations Protection of intellectual property and brands Liability issues and risk mitigation Governing law and dispute resolution Real estate matters Online trading regulations Termination requirements Joint employer risks and vicarious liability Currency controls and taxation Commercial agency considerations Good faith obligations and fair dealing requirements Ongoing relationship management Franchise renewal processes Franchise migration procedures Electronic signatures and document retention The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, examines these topics in detail, with particular attention to recent developments like the Trade Competition Commission’s Franchising Guidelines which introduced new disclosure requirements and protections for franchisees. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression