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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Industries

Consumer Products

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
March 4, 2021
Myanmar, which is now more than halfway through the scheduled soft opening of its Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the country’s New Trademark Law, is well on its way to the full realization of its plans for a modernized IP system operating on par with international standards. As the first of four IP-related laws passed in 2019, the ongoing implementation of the Trademark Law affects definitions of trademarks and types of trademark applications. Section 2 of the law defines a “mark” as “either a visible sign or a combination of signs, including one’s own names, alphabet letters, numbers, graphical representations, or compositions of color and tints to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise from those of another enterprise. Within this scope, trademark, service mark, collective mark and certification mark are also included. The ‘series mark’ consists of a number of these marks, which resemble each other on the material particulars, but may differ in some aspect—for instance, a mark with different color variations. However, there is no specific definition of what makes up a series mark in the Trademark Law itself, and there has also not yet been any clear guidance on the issue. The Trademark Rules, which set the guidelines for the trademark application and registration procedures, are still in the process of being finalized, are expected to include information on the possibility of filing series marks under the soft opening period. On December 29 2020, the IPD held a workshop to clarify various issues, and informed attendees that applications containing more than one trademark in a single application are prohibited under the new system. However, this seemed to contradict the Ministry of Commerce’s Order No. 63/2020, which had declared that the refiling of old marks under the soft opening period of the new Trademark Law
Read More
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More