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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Industries

Automotive

Consumer Products

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 27, 2022
The Energy Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) has launched a pilot project to study the energy consumption and the economic, social, and environmental impact of electric motorcycle taxis, as well as the behavior of drivers and passengers. The project, which was launched on December 27, 2021, as part of EGAT’s Carbon Neutrality Policy, will continue for a year, after which EGAT will consider the data and decide whether electric motorcycle taxis should be introduced nationwide. EGAT is also currently encouraging the use of electric bikes within their own organization, and they initially expect this to help reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 37 tons and prevent the release of about 838,000 milligrams of dust per year. EGAT expects additional significant reductions from electric motorcycle taxi pilot projects in multiple locations. A study conducted in Kenya in 2015 by that country’s energy regulator found that sub-150cc motorcycles emit approximately 46.5 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer, and these emissions increase proportionally in accordance with engine size. According to Thailand’s Office of Industrial Economics, citing data collected by the Federation of Thai Industries Automotive Industry Group, a total of 1,516,096 motorcycles were sold in Thailand in 2020—a surprisingly robust figure in light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Assuming that public motorcycles travel an average of 15,000 kilometers per year, each motorcycle is therefore producing approximately 0.7 tons of carbon dioxide per year. If Thailand is able to change 50% of its yearly sales of standard motorcycle to electric motorcycles, annual carbon dioxide emissions could decrease by approximately 530,000 tons. Furthermore, since 28.8% of carbon dioxide emissions in Thailand are generated from the transport sector, the transition to electric mobility vehicles looks to be one of the most promising solutions for lowering carbon dioxide emissions in the country. Considering developments
Read More
January 12, 2022
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) recently published BOI Notification No. Sor. 8/2564, which extends the scope of investment promotion covering electronic vehicle (EV) industry manufacturers to include the production of “automotive platforms” for electric vehicles, and creates a new category of BOI promoted activities covering the manufacture of electric bicycles (E-bikes). Automotive Platforms The following investment promotion categories have been extended: 4.24 – Manufacture of Battery Electric Vehicles 4.26 – Manufacture of Electric Battery Tricycles 4.27 – Manufacture of Electric Battery Busses and Trucks These categories now include the manufacture of “automotive platforms”—which must include an energy storage system, charging module, and front and rear axle module—benefiting from similar tax incentives and subject to additional conditions, as detailed below. New BOI Promotional Category for E-Bike Production The BOI has also introduced a new category, No. 4.28, covering the manufacture of E-bikes. Projects under this category will be eligible for a three-year CIT exemption with an additional one-year exemption if certain criteria are met. Applications for this category must cover the manufacture of E-bikes, the manufacture or sourcing of electric batteries, and a management plan for used batteries. In addition to the general conditions for EV projects (industrial standards, manufacturing timelines, etc.), the BOI has also imposed the following conditions specific to E-bike projects: E-bike frames must be produced from light-weight materials such as aluminum alloy, chromium–molybdenum alloy steel (chrome moly), titanium alloy, and carbon fiber; and E-bike batteries must adopt environmentally-friendly technology. Interestingly the BOI allows E-bike production lines to jointly use manufacturing lines for ordinary bicycles. However, the sale of ordinary bicycles is regarded as non-BOI-promoted income and will not be entitled to BOI tax incentives. These new provisions, intended to stimulate both local and foreign investments in the electric automotive industry, seem to complete the BOI promotion
Read More
January 12, 2022
The popularity of the franchise business model has grown rapidly in mainland Southeast Asia in recent years, with some of the world’s top brands becoming common sights in the commercial districts and shopping malls of major regional cities in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Although these countries have not yet enacted franchising-specific laws, certain features of each country’s regulatory regime impact franchising. As such, well-prepared franchise business operations have comfortably adapted to each country’s regulatory framework, and the growth is poised to continue even as the global retail sector redesigns and redoubles its efforts in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the franchise business model, which is both global and local at the same time, may offer retail entrepreneurs a solution in their quest to meet the challenges of the new retail economic realities. This article explains the legal frameworks that impact the franchise business model in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. For each country, this article discusses relevant regulatory considerations for franchise agreements, how to protect intellectual property rights, and judicial and arbitral procedures for resolving disputes that might arise between a franchisor and a franchisee. The full article can be downloaded through the button below.   © 2021. Originally published in the Franchise Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, Fall 2021, by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association or the copyright holder.
Read More
December 31, 2021
In the last week of December, 2021, the Ministry of Justice published the Law Amending Certain Provisions of the Laws on Tax No. 01/NA, dated August 7, 2021, in the Government Gazette. The Law will come into force on January 1, 2022. The most notable amendments relate to Value Added Tax (VAT), which are summarized below. The new law also makes changes to the laws on tax management, income tax, and excise tax, which Tilleke & Gibbins will provide updates on in due course.
Read More