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​ 

November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
November 13, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Franchise 2026, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This annual guide offers comparative analysis of franchise laws and regulations across jurisdictions worldwide, providing practical insights for businesses and legal practitioners operating in the global franchise sector. Each country chapter in the 12th edition follows a Q&A format covering key 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 Sustainability commitments Electronic signatures and document retention Current developments in the franchise sector The Thailand chapter, authored by Alan Adcock and Kasama Sriwatanakul, provides an in-depth overview of the legal landscape for franchising and franchising-related activities in Thailand. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Franchise 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
November 12, 2025
Thailand’s Customs Department has announced the cancellation of the longstanding de minimis exemption, which waives import duties on goods valued at THB 1,500 or less, as of January 1, 2026. This policy shift will directly impact e-commerce, logistics, and retail sectors, and will have wide-ranging implications for any company involved in cross-border trade with Thailand. Background Under current regulations, imported goods with a customs value (cost, insurance, and freight, or “CIF”) of THB 1,500 or less are exempt from import duties. This has been a cornerstone of the cross-border e-commerce model, allowing for the duty-free import of millions of small parcels. Under the new policy effective January 1, 2026, all imported goods, regardless of value, will be subject to assessment for import duties upon entry into Thailand. The stated rationale for this change is to create fair competition for Thai small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which must pay VAT and other costs on their goods, putting them at a price disadvantage against foreign sellers who utilize the de minimis loophole. Business Implications This policy change will create new costs, compliance burdens, and operational challenges. For foreign e-commerce sellers and platforms: The most direct impact will be the addition of import duties to low-value items. Assuming the costs are passed on to the consumer, the higher prices and potentially more complex or slower customs clearance processes could lead to increased cart abandonment and reduced consumer demand. Businesses should review their pricing models and develop a clear strategy for calculating, declaring, and paying these new duties. For logistics providers and customs brokers: The administrative burden will be considerable. Carriers that previously handled millions of nondutiable parcels will now be required to process them for duty assessment and collection. This may necessitate new IT systems and streamlined processes to avoid delays at
October 24, 2025
Thailand currently lacks a specific franchise act. Consequently, the legality of any franchise agreement is determined by its compliance with various existing laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Code, the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2530 (1997). Thailand is a freedom-to-contract jurisdiction. This allows for a high degree of flexibility and autonomy in contractual arrangements, provided that the terms do not violate any laws or public policy and do not fall under the scope of unfair contract terms. Given this, the requirement for fairness in franchise agreement terms often leads to uncertainty, but decisions from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) can provide guidance on whether specific contentious terms are in fact fair.  One issue worth examining in this light is the inclusion of terms on nonrefundable franchise fees and strict purchasing conditions. Franchise Fee: Unfair to Refuse Refund? Nonrefundable franchise fees represent a significant upfront investment for franchisees, often becoming a point of contention if the franchise relationship deteriorates or the franchisor ceases operations. Their fairness and enforceability are frequently scrutinized by regulatory bodies like the TCCT, highlighting the critical balance between contractual freedom and franchisee protection. Faced with one such case, the TCCT considered whether it was unfair for the franchisor to refuse to refund the franchise fee after the franchisor ceased operations.  The franchisee had entered into a service agreement on August 2, 2021, and begun operating on October 9, 2021. However, by November 21, 2023, the franchisee was notified that the system would be shut down for maintenance, and by December 26, 2023, the franchisor announced the cessation of operations due to financial losses. The franchisee then requested a refund of the franchise fee. Unfortunately for the franchisee, the TCCT found that the franchisor’s