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​ 

April 19, 2021
Thailand has made significant changes to its statutory interest rate framework for the first time in almost a century. Since 1925, the statutory interest rate codified in Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (the CCC) has remained at 7.5% per year. But with Covid-19 having an unprecedented impact on the Thai economy, the Thai Government, via emergency decree, has reduced the statutory rate. While the decree is largely aimed at providing relief to hard-hit SMEs and individual debtors, the amendments have broader implications for doing business in Thailand. Main Changes The new interest rate revisions are contained within the Emergency Decree Amending the Civil and Commercial Code B.E. 2564 (2021) (the Emergency Decree), which was published in the Government Gazette on April 10, 2021 and came into effect on April 11, 2021. The Emergency Decree amends Sections 7 and 224 of the CCC, which stated the previous statutory interest rate of 7.5% per year. The Emergency Decree makes three major changes. The first involves a reduction of the statutory interest rate from 7.5% per year to 3% per year in Section 7. The new 3% annual rate is subject to review every three years by the Ministry of Finance. The interest rate is subject to further change later by a royal decree. The second change concerns money debts under Section 224 of the CCC. The previous version of Section 224 stated, among other things, that a money debt based on a default bears interest of 7.5% per year. Under the Emergency Decree, the new actual statutory default interest rate is the statutory interest rate stated in Section 7 with an additional rate of 2% per year. The result is a 5% annual statutory default interest rate. Since the statutory default interest rate is based in part on the Section 7
March 4, 2021
E-commerce platforms have become some of the most significant marketplaces in Thailand, with millions of daily business transactions and huge numbers of online users. The increasing number of online shops operating on e-commerce platforms requires new techniques to be employed in online IP rights infringement cases. Both the private sector and the government have developed tools to enhance online IP enforcement, including ones using the latest legal technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Many legal technologies and AI operations are still nascent and typically do not yet offer the best approach for online IP rights enforcement. For example, AI and other technologies available today are still unable to consistently differentiate between original and counterfeit products from the images and information displayed on the e-commerce platforms and the internet. Therefore, some of the most effective measures for online IP enforcement still involve manual online searches by experienced local investigators with deep understanding of the behaviors of local users (both sellers and buyers) and the ability to link relevant information across online platforms. Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), as the governmental office responsible for IP-related matters in Thailand, has initiated its new Memorandum of Understanding on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet. This memorandum of understanding (MOU) does not create additional rights for IP owners, but acts as a mechanism to gather all the relevant stakeholders to address issues related to online IP infringement in a unified, mutually agreeable manner. The signatories of the MOU fall into four categories: Governmental authorities: DIP, Department of Business Development, and Department of International Trade Promotion; E-commerce platform operators: Lazada, Shopee, and JD Central (the most popular e-commerce platforms in Thailand); IP rights holders: Particularly including trademark owners facing ongoing counterfeiting problems in Thailand; and Law firms. Although the MOU is not
March 4, 2021
Vietnam has become a big player in the global fashion industry. Garments made in Vietnam now appear all over the world, especially in the U.S. and the EU. In this value chain, however, Vietnamese companies usually play the role of garment processors, fulfilling the orders of big brands for immediate export purposes. While the goods bearing the registered marks are made in Vietnam by local companies, the brand owners are often overseas or global corporations. As a brand owner can lose protection of its mark in Vietnam due to non-use, this situation leads to the question of what constitutes “use” of a mark when the mark-bearing goods are processed for export only, and not sold in the Vietnam market. Article 124.5 of Vietnam’s IP Law provides that: Use of a mark means the performance of the following acts: Affixing the protected mark on goods, packaging, business facilities, means of service provision, or transaction documents in business activities; Circulating, offering, advertising, or stocking for sale goods bearing the protected mark; Importing goods or services bearing the protected mark. At first glance, the above provision seems quite clear. While importing goods appears on the list, exporting goods is conspicuously absent, and therefore it is not an act of use. However, it is also clear that for the purpose of exporting, a product should go through a manufacturing or processing stage in which the mark will be physically affixed to the product or its packaging. For fashion goods, this could be in the form of a removable tag or package, a tag sewn onto the item, or a fundamental part of the garment’s design (such as a T-shirt emblazoned with a brand name, or a shoe featuring a distinctive logo). Then, the question becomes whether this act of affixing the mark on