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

May 2, 2014

Product Liability Act: Is Your Business a Potentially Liable Party?

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Thailand’s Product Liability Act has been in force for six years but has not yet resulted in any landmark Supreme Court decisions. There are, however, many significant cases working their way through the legal system and business owners are beginning to feel the impact of the law, officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act.

Unfortunately, most business owners have limited knowledge of the Act and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable when faced with an allegation of involvement with an “unsafe product.”

Generally speaking, a potentially liable party (PLP) under the Act can be any of the following: any individual or entity that manufactures (or authorizes the manufacturing); assembles; imports (including any seller of goods where the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified); uses the name, trade name, trade mark, or statements; or acts in any manner that can cause them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer; and who sold goods after Feb 20, 2009.

The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of tangible good that has been manufactured or imported for sale, including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by the ministerial regulations. Real estate and services are excluded. But real estate buyers may still receive protection from the Civil and Commercial Code or the Consumer Protection Act.

The Act defines “unsafe products” as being any product that actually causes or may cause damage or injury due to a manufacturing defect, design defect, lack of clear warning, instruction or other information about usage, and/or maintenance or preservation of the product.

Consequently, if any unsafe product causes damage or injury to a consumer who purchased it, regardless of whether the damage was caused intentionally or negligently by the potentially liable party, every PLP will be jointly liable for the damages sustained by the consumer, with few exceptions.

Under the Act, plaintiffs only need to prove that they were damaged or injured by the PLP’s product and that they had used and maintained the product properly. The plaintiff does not need to prove which PLP caused the damage or injury.

It is possible, however, for a PLP to avoid liability if it can prove the following:

  • The product was not unsafe.
  • The plaintiff was aware that the product was an unsafe product.
  • The plaintiff misused the product, despite clear information and warnings.

It is important to note that a PLP cannot avoid liability by entering into an agreement with the consumer that has the effect of waiving or limiting the PLP’s liability in advance.

The Product Liability Act provides for different methods through which an aggrieved party can bring a claim. First, the plaintiff may bring a lawsuit in any court that has jurisdiction. Second, the aggrieved party may file a complaint with the Consumer Protection Board or a foundation or association authorized by the Consumer Protection Board to accept such complaints.

Thereafter, such bodies can submit a complaint to any court having jurisdiction on behalf of the aggrieved party. Court fees are waived, but fees ordered by the court in the final case are still payable.

In cases where the court determines that the aggrieved party was damaged by an unsafe product, it will award damages. Under the Product Liability Act, the court is not restricted to awarding damages set out in the Civil and Commercial Code, but is entitled to consider other forms of compensation that are unusual under Thai law, as follows:

  • The court may award damages for mental pain and suffering, as well as actual bodily harm and harm to property.
  • If the unsafe product caused the death of a person, the court may award damages for the mental pain and suffering of the immediate family.
  • Where the PLP was aware, or should have been aware but was not due to gross negligence, the court may award punitive damages not exceeding double actual damages.

Moreover, the Consumer Protection Board, under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), is entitled to order business operators to recall, destroy, or cease selling any unsafe product if the business operator fails to proceed with requirements under the CPA.

The Product Liability Act is intended to protect consumers from unsafe products and attempts to accomplish this by simplifying the procedure and reducing the burdens for consumers to bring an action. The Act expands the scope of liability for entities involved in the manufacture, sale, and importation of products, while leaving few avenues for such PLP to avoid liability. PLPs should assess the potential to become involved in such lawsuits, even through the actions of others involved in providing the product to consumers.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More