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

September 15, 2022

How Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board Handles Consumer Complaints

In the course of our work, we often hear about consumers in Thailand lodging complaints with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) about problems with a purchased product or service.

The OCPB is a government agency attached to the Office of the Prime Minister. Its main duties are to protect consumers in Thailand with respect to product advertising, product labeling, and contracts, and to handle consumer complaints.

However, there are exceptions to the types of consumer complaints that the OCPB can handle. This is because some consumer complaints must by law be handled by certain specialized agencies. Examples of these exceptions include consumer complaints relating to:

  • health products (food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, household dangerous substances, and narcotics);
  • medical services;
  • insurance;
  • pricing of consumer products;
  • condominium juristic person;
  • public land;
  • rail, water, and air transportation;
  • tourism;
  • education;
  • banking and finance;
  • telecommunications; and
  • electricity and water consumption.

Procedure

When a consumer complaint that the office can accept comes to the OCPB, the officers first consider whether the business operator has violated any laws, in which case the relevant authorities, such as the police, should handle the matter.

When the officers consider it appropriate, they may ask the parties to mediate the dispute. Complaints in Bangkok are mediated by officers at the Bangkok OCPB. For complaints lodged in other provinces, the governors of the provinces may assign officers or agencies under their supervision to mediate.

The OCPB can mediate twice within 90 days. If the parties still want to continue with the mediation, a subcommittee of the Consumer Protection Board (CPB)—the body that directs the OCPB—will then conduct two more mediation sessions within 90 days. If a resolution is still not reached, the subcommittee can conduct one additional mediation session before declaring the mediation failed and ending the complaint process. At this point, if the CPB determines that the case involves a matter of public interest (such as a case involving a product or service widely used by the public), the CPB could proceed with filing a case on behalf of the consumer. However, if the CPB declines to proceed in this manner, it would be up to the consumer to bring a case on his or her own.

If the mediation is successful, the officers then prepare a draft compromise agreement for the parties to review and sign. Upon conclusion of the agreement, the parties relinquish all prior relevant rights to make any claims against each other and agree to be bound instead by the terms of the compromise agreement. If a party does not comply with the terms, the CPB has the discretion to enforce the agreement.

If the mediation fails and the CPB believes that the business operator has violated the consumer’s rights or any laws, and that further proceedings would be beneficial to consumers as a whole, the CPB may appoint a public prosecutor or a legal officer to initiate civil or criminal actions against the business operator on behalf of the consumer.

Analysis

From our experience, OCPB mediation can be a useful tool for business operators to end the consumer disputes without having to risk costly and cumbersome criminal proceedings. The convenience and savings can be significant, as most OCPB mediations are now conducted via videoconferencing. However, physical meetings are still needed for the parties to sign the compromise agreement in front of the officers.

Overall, the OPCB mechanism for handling consumer complaints offers both consumers and providers of goods or services a way to resolve their disputes and reach a mutually agreeable settlement. Consumers can feel confident knowing that they have recourse if they run into a problem related to goods or services, and business owners can be assured that consumer complaints will be handled through an established process that will defend them from spurious claims while giving them a chance to rectify justified complaints without undue expense.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 13, 2026
On August 6, 2026, the National Bank of Cambodia (NBC) issued a notice calling on business owners that issue electronic money, such as e-wallet accounts and stored-value membership cards, to notify the central bank within 90 days. The notice targets businesses that are not licensed banking or financial institutions or payment service providers, but have been issuing e-money to facilitate payments within their own networks. Failure to notify the NBC may result in legal action. Background and Regulatory Basis The NBC has observed that certain businesses, including cafes, restaurants, transportation companies, entertainment centers, and gas stations, have been issuing e-money through e-wallet accounts in mobile apps or membership cards to facilitate customer payments for products or services within their own networks. Customers create e-wallet accounts and load balances to pay for goods or services at the issuing business. The NBC describes this as “single-purpose e-money.” Under the 1999 Law on Banking and Financial Institutions, providing payment facilities to customers forms part of the operations of banking and financial institutions and requires an NBC license. In addition, article 20 of the 2017 Prakas on the Management of Payment Service Institutions further prohibits legal entities other than banking and financial institutions and payment service institutions from issuing e-money. However, article 20 also provides that issuing e-money in certain limited cases does not require a license, but the NBC must be notified in advance in writing. A business may issue single-purpose e-money without a payment service institution license provided it meets all the following conditions and submits written notice to the NBC: The maximum balance per account is KHR 200,000 (approximately USD 50) or equivalent. The total aggregate balance across all accounts does not exceed KHR 800 million (approximately USD 200,000) or equivalent. The e-money is used to pay for products or
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one