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 19, 2016

Product Liability: Recalls and Business Impact

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

A number of well-known companies have recently recalled their products from the market to fix problems or defects. Whenever a recall occurs, business suffers. First, there is the cost of implementing the recall. Second, the company’s reputation is damaged. Both of these factors result in a decreased volume of product sales.

To successfully navigate these pitfalls, companies should be aware of their legal rights and obligations. Thailand’s main laws governing product recalls are the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Case Procedure Act, and the Product Liability Act which is officially known as the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act.

Product recalls can be broadly grouped into two categories: voluntary recalls and compulsory recalls. As the name implies, voluntary recalls involve a seller or manufacturer willingly taking the products back. Compulsory recalls involve government entities forcing the seller or manufacturer to recall a product. This article discusses both types of recalls.

Voluntary Recalls

If a manufacturer or seller finds that their products have a problem or defect, they may initiate a recall to resolve the issue. They have a number of options to recall the products. This includes issuing a general announcement to the public and their customers advising on the recall, or issuing a letter directly to their customers asking them to bring the product in to be fixed.

If the defect is minor, and not too many products were sold, the seller can usually ask its customers to bring the product in to be fixed during a stated period. However, the expenses to fix the product will usually be absorbed by the manufacturers or the sellers if the products clearly show the defect because of a production or design flaw. In some circumstances, the product may have deteriorated faster than the warranty period because of customer use. In this case, some manufacturers or sellers ask customers to be responsible for paying some of the expenses to fix the products (e.g., the labor costs).

Whether to voluntarily recall products also depends on the manufacturers’ or sellers’ policies and other factors such as the market situation, a company’s budget, the image of the product, and the potential business impact. In general, a voluntary recall shows the manufacturers’ or sellers’ good faith. A manufacturer or seller is voluntarily taking their products out of the market because of a possible issue, even though the public may not be aware of the defect. Indeed, a voluntary recall generally paints the seller in a more positive light than sellers who are forced to recall goods under a compulsory recall.

Compulsory Recalls

Under Thailand’s Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Case Procedure Act, and Product Liability Act, if consumers find that the products they have purchased are unsafe, they can lodge a complaint with the Consumer Protection Bureau (CPB). They can also file a court case. In general, a potentially liable party under the law can be any individual or entity that manufactures (or authorizes the manufacturing of); 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 February 20, 2009 (the effective date of the Product Liability Act).

In addition, 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. Therefore, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code or the Consumer Protection Act.

The Product Liability 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 potentially liable party will be jointly liable for the damages sustained by the consumer, with few exceptions.

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

If a consumer lodges a complaint to the CPB, the CPB will investigate and give both parties the chance to present evidence. If the alleged defect is related to a technical problem, the CPB will appoint an expert to consider the evidence. The expert will conduct product tests. The manufacturer or seller must absorb the costs for these tests.

If, after an investigation, the CPB finds that the product is an “unsafe product” under the law, the CPB will issue an order to force the manufacturer or seller to stop selling the product within a specific time period until they can prove that the products are not unsafe. The CPB has a policy to encourage both parties to negotiate and settle if the CPB considers that the problem is minor. The CPB may also state some additional conditions to the manufacturer or seller such as proving that the minor defect is not dangerous to consumers, etc.

If a consumer party files a lawsuit, the court fees are waived. If the court determines that the consumer party was damaged by an unsafe product, it will award damages which are not restricted to those damages stated in the Civil and Commercial Code. The court is entitled to consider other forms of compensation that are unusual in Thai law, such as damages for mental pain and suffering, etc.

In addition, the courts can order business operators to recall, destroy, or cease selling any unsafe product if the business operator fails to proceed with requirements under the law. The court may also impose conditions for those measures, such as a specific period to recall, a specific model of a product to recall, etc.

Given the potentially huge negative business impacts associated with recalls, business operators should ensure that they have in place robust quality-control measures for their production processes and their products.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
June 25, 2025
In Thailand, in-court business rehabilitation is a legal proceeding that enhances a debtor’s chance to restructure business operations for corporate debtors who are unable to repay their debts. The purpose of this proceeding is to allow the debtor to continue operating the business and generate income to repay creditors. The amounts that creditors receive in the rehabilitation proceeding are greater than the amounts creditors would receive if the debtor went bankrupt. The law is not designed to allow debtors or creditors to use the business rehabilitation process in bad faith for their benefit or to defraud another party. Accordingly, the Business Rehabilitation Law, which is included in the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940), provides criminal liability for actions taken before or during the process. This article addresses the key points regarding criminal liability for safeguarding debtors and creditors in business rehabilitation proceedings from any parties who act in bad faith. Criminal Liability in Business Rehabilitation The following provisions establish the framework for criminal liability in business rehabilitation cases, ensuring that all parties act with integrity throughout the process. The Bankruptcy Act of Thailand B.E. 2483 (1940) provides the relevant provisions regarding the business rehabilitation process. Additionally, if a company debtor or its authorized directors are found to have committed fraud or malfeasance under the Bankruptcy Act, they can also be held criminally liable under the Penal Code or related criminal statutes. The rehabilitation process aims to help a business recover financially under the supervision of the court. When the court approves the rehabilitation plan, the court appoints a business rehabilitation plan administrator to manage and implement the process. However, if it is discovered that the debtor, its executives, or even the plan administrator engaged in illegal activities prior to or during the rehabilitation process—such as tax evasion, embezzlement,