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?

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered