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

August 31, 2011

New U.S. Law Affects Users of Unlicensed or Pirated IT

Informed Counsel

Manufacturers whose products are sold, or offered for sale, in Washington State should be aware of a new unfair competition law in that state. The new law, which went into effect on 22 July 2011, imposes civil liability on manufacturers who use IT that is either stolen or misappropriated. Proceedings can be brought by competing manufacturers or the Washington State Attorney General if such IT is used in the manufacture, distribution, marketing or sale of products sold or offered for sale in the state. This may become a growing trend in the U.S., as a similar law has already been passed in Louisiana. Other states are likely to follow.

The new laws seek to level the playing field so that users of illegal or unauthorized IT will no longer enjoy the competitive advantage of being able to use such IT for free, thus competing unfairly against competitors in the marketplace who choose to use only legal and legitimate IT to conduct their business. Moreover, those manufacturers who elect to use stolen IT run the risk of having to pay damages, having their goods seized, and possibly losing access to desirable U.S. markets.

The laws are intended to ensure that there is a respect for property rights, while also providing a compliance procedure that is easy for all stakeholders to implement.

How the Law Works

Under the Washington State law, a competing manufacturer, whether it resides in the U.S. or a foreign country, can  bring the action having to prove that it:

  • Manufactures products sold in the state in direct competition with the products claimed to have been created using stolen or misappropriated IT.
  • Did not manufacture its products using stolen or misappropriated IT.
  • Suffered economic harm, established by showing a retail price of stolen IT of at least USD 20,000.

The law goes even further. Not only are manufacturers liable for suit, but so are third parties, such as retailers or distributors, who offer goods produced with stolen IT. After a successful action against the manufacturer, a plaintiff may bring an action against third parties that, among other criteria, have a direct contractual relationship with the manufacturer that uses unauthorized IT. Such an action may be brought if the third party was not subject to the original proceedings, if the manufacturer has no attachable assets to satisfy the judgment, or if certain other criteria are fulfilled. Plaintiffs are not required to have any minimum contacts in the state in order to commence actions under the Washington State law.

Before an action can commence, IT owners are first required to have written to the potential defendant setting out details of the allegation particular enough to allow the potential defendant to respond. The potential defendant will have 90 days to respond to the IT owner’s letter. A further 90-day period may be granted if the manufacturer demonstrates that it needs more time for the legalization process. Defendants who fail to stop using stolen IT after the commencement of the court action may be subject to court injunctions preventing the sale of their goods in the state, or the plaintiff could be awarded either the actual damages suffered or statutory damages not exceeding the retail price of the IT, whichever is greater. Willful infringers run the risk of having damages tripled.

There are several limitations, however. Actions may not be brought against manufacturers who produce food, beverages, and medical products regulated by the U.S. FDA. Companies cannot be sued if their end products are protected by copyright law, such as books, movies, and music. Promotional products related to copyrightable works and theme parks are also excluded from the law.

What the Law Calls For

Because these new U.S. state laws apply to any manufacturers of goods sold in those states and any customers (such as retailers or distributors) they have within those jurisdictions, even manufacturers with no legal presence in the U.S. should examine these new laws closely and should monitor those state legislatures which are considering similar laws. Most businesses have IT management systems in place already, but with the promulgation and likely additional laws intended to disadvantage users of stolen IT, now may be a good time to conduct internal audits on their business units and supply chains globally to ensure internal policies and procedures are being followed and to determine whether additional safeguards need to be implemented. Manufacturers around the world are now going to have increase their IT management vigilance.

The benefits of using legal and legitimate IT are clear. Compliance with legal IT can be a competitive differentiator in the global marketplace. Successful global companies are increasingly focused on implementing high standards of legal and ethical compliance throughout their supply chains and in their relationships with other businesses. Organizations that are able to certify their use of legal IT will enhance their global reputation, safeguard their business and have a distinct competitive advantage.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,