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

January 18, 2023

Myanmar Issues Rules for Recalls and Bans of Dangerous Goods and Services

On December 20, 2022, Myanmar’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) announced rules for recalling dangerous goods and temporarily or permanently halting the sale and distribution of dangerous goods and services. This announcement was made with DCA Directive No. 3/2022, which was posted to the department’s official website on January 5, 2023.

Goods that can cause minor damage to consumers must be recalled. This includes goods that:

  • Have potentially dangerous design flaws that were not clear at the time of manufacture but that can manifest during use of the goods;
  • Have defects from the manufacturing process, transportation, or storage before their distribution;
  • Have faults and defects that prevent use; or
  • Do not comply with the relevant safety standards for dangerous goods.

Sales and distribution of goods or services that cause major damage to consumers (short of death) will be banned temporarily in addition to their recall. Business owners must recall such goods within the period specified by the DCA, which decides on recall and temporary or permanent ban of dangerous goods and services under Myanmar’s consumer protection regulations.

If goods or services can lead to or cause the death of consumers, sales and distribution of the goods or services will be banned permanently, and business owners must recall any existing goods within the period specified by the DCA.

Procedures for DCA-Ordered Product Recall and Temporary or Permanent Ban

Business owners are responsible for taking the actions described above within the specified period, and officers from the DCA office in the respective state or region can inspect businesses to ensure compliance with procedures for recalls and temporary or permanent bans. The inspector will verify that the relevant goods are recalled from the market in line with the specified period and in accordance with any other specific requirements on a case-by-case basis (such as a product recall in conjunction with provision of information to remedy the damage). The business owner must then inform the applicable DCA office in writing or electronically when the recall process or temporary or permanent ban of goods or services is complete. If business owners do not report back on the progress, the office will inform the Consumer Affairs Committee with jurisdiction over the business’ geographical region.

Businesses that have dangerous goods in the market must also inform the business partners in their whole supply chain (e.g., importer, exporter, retailer, wholesaler, installment seller, distributor, installer, maintainer, manufacturer, intermediary service provider, service provider, etc.) of the recall action plan in writing or electronically.

The business owners must then recall the goods from the market and from consumers. In summary, the recall process includes:

  • Stopping distribution and manufacture of the goods;
  • Removing the goods from the market;
  • Planning the recall strategy;
  • Informing relevant government departments;
  • Announcing to consumers and recalling any goods that are already in the hands of consumers;
  • Informing supply chain partners of the action plan set by the department;
  • When goods are made for export, informing the relevant parties in the places where the goods are sold; and
  • Informing the DCA when the recall process is complete.

After this recall process, the business owner must:

  • Investigate the goods that were recalled or temporarily banned;
  • Systematically store or destroy the relevant goods;
  • Remedy the consumer damages; and
  • For dangerous goods, inform the headquarters of the goods’ manufacturer and obtain its acknowledgment as evidence.

Businesses must also provide consumers and supply chain partners with refunds equal to the value of loss, substitute, or return of the goods to be repaired. If goods are difficult to send back, businesses must send a service agent to the consumer’s home or the location of the item. Businesses are also responsible for delivering substitute goods or parts to consumers.

Voluntary Recalls

To initiate a voluntary recall, business operators must present the DCA with various information about the goods and their distribution, the potential danger and damages, the recall strategy and communication plans, and other particulars. The respective DCA office will then decide on the duration for the recall process, with the approval of the DCA, and will supervise the recall. Upon the completion of the recall process, the business owner must provide a comprehensive report and supporting evidence to the respective DCA office.

Post-Recall Procedures

If goods have been repaired and are ready to resell or redistribute to the market after a voluntary or DCA-ordered recall, the business owner must submit—following the specified forms—information on the recall and repairs to the respective DCA office. Business owners reselling goods without first making the necessary report will be reported to the respective Consumer Affairs Committee and may face legal action.

Recalls and Bans of Specially Regulated Goods or Services

If dangerous goods or services that necessitate a recall or ban are subject by law to regulation by any government department or organization, the DCA will transfer the case to the respective government department or organization. If that government department or organizations does not have the capacity to handle the necessary recall or ban, the relevant authorities will cooperate to protect consumers.

Public Recall Announcements

The DCA will provide consumers with clear information on recalls and bans of dangerous goods via public announcement on the DCA website, the website of the ASEAN Committee on Consumer Protection, or any official partner of the DCA.

Separately, business owners must also announce certain information regarding the dangerous goods or services to consumers via at least three channels (i.e., “media,” television, radio, newspaper, journal, and magazine) for three consecutive days.

For more details on these consumer protection regulations, or on any aspect of consumer products in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 14, 2025
Attorneys at Tilleke & Gibbins in Yangon have contributed an updated Myanmar entry to Multilaw’s Real Estate Guide, a concise online resource designed to give investors insight into some fundamental issues they may face in managing real estate transactions and ownership. The guide now features contributions from Multilaw member firms in 68 jurisdictions worldwide. It outlines key legal requirements in each jurisdiction, focusing especially on the restrictions and taxes applicable in each country, and the legal methods available for registering and identifying real estate and property ownership. Tilleke & Gibbins is a proud member of Multilaw, a leading network of carefully selected, independent law firms in more than 150 commercial centers, able to provide expert legal advice in complex environments around the globe. The Myanmar entry in the Real Estate Guide is available on the Multilaw website.
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
June 27, 2025
Three American giants are actively protecting their intellectual property rights against generative AI, as two legal battles commence on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, Seattle-based media company Getty Images accuses UK-based Stability AI of multiple IP infringements. In the US, The Walt Disney Company and Universal Studios are teaming up against Midjourney, an AI startup, with their main ground being copyright infringement. Both cases are centered around questions legal minds have been posing since the introduction of generative AI: Is the output of generative AI an infringement? And who is ultimately responsible for the output, the platform or the user? Getty Images v. Stability AI Getty initially filed a claim in the High Court in 2023, which resulted in Stability applying for reverse summary judgment on the grounds that Getty had no real prospect of success, arguing that their operations took place outside the UK. However, the High Court judge hearing the case decided that the claims brought by Getty did have a real prospect of succeeding in court. Despite this, Stability saw a small victory when the court ruled that the representative action brought by Getty would not succeed due to the difficulties in identifying who qualified for the class. The proposed class was comprised of 50,000 rightsholders who alleged their rights were also infringed. Stability was successful in arguing that identifying these individuals would be challenging due to the unclear definition of the class. This current trial is centered around four main grounds: Copyright infringement. Getty accuses Stability of using content that Getty owns or has an exclusive license for when training their model, Stable Diffusion, resulting in the generated output containing substantial parts of that content. Getty is also alleging secondary copyright infringement, arguing that Stability is importing an article into the UK
June 25, 2025
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption. The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight. For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues. The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks. Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully. Risks of GenAI Use The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant: Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training.