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 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,
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies