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

September 18, 2015

Thailand’s New Alcohol Labeling and Message Requirements

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

On January 22, the government issued a new notification, published in the Royal Gazette, setting out controversial labeling and message restrictions for alcoholic beverages that could result in major losses for the alcohol industry. It is being challenged before the Administrative Court, but pending the outcome of that case it has come into effect on April 22.

The Notification of Alcoholic Beverages Control Re: Rules, Procedures, and Conditions for Labels of Alcoholic Beverages, as it is formally known, is based on the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 2008 and its subsequent 2010 Ministerial Regulation, under which alcoholic beverages cannot be advertised in any way that boasts of efficacies, benefits, or qualities, or induces one to drink.

In January 2014, the Public Health Ministry notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of proposed labeling requirements for alcoholic beverages. The draft notification prohibited the use of various types of messages on alcoholic beverage labels and packages including any message “which misleads consumers on the content of products” and any message “using the picture of a cartoon.”

The ministry issued a revised draft notification in August 2014 that combined the labeling restrictions with measures mandating graphic health warnings on alcoholic beverage packaging. Thailand would be the first country in the world to do so. It had earlier introduced the concept of graphic health warnings on alcoholic beverage packaging in 2010, but after details of the proposal reached the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Committee, no more was heard of the proposal.

Last December, the ministry signed the final version of the notification without the graphic health warning provisions but with revised versions of the labeling and message restrictions. They include prohibitions on “a message which materially misleads consumers on the content of products” and “a message using cartoon images except images which are trademarks of alcoholic beverages which have been legitimately registered prior to enforcement of this Notification.”

Alcoholic beverages have long been branded and marketed with labels, containers, and packaging containing important messages depicted graphically that have been registered as trademarks and/or service marks. The ministry is likely to argue that many such future trademarks unregistered before April 22 violate the requirements in the notification, and therefore operators would be prohibited from displaying such trademarks on their products in Thailand. This would prevent rights holders from using their trademarks in accordance with their registration and put those marks at risk of cancellation based on non-use.

With the notification now in effect, the ministry appears to be moving once more toward reintroducing requirements for graphic health warnings on alcoholic beverage packaging. In 2010 and last year, the ministry proposed the introduction of graphic health warnings akin to those already in place for tobacco products.

In a novel move, the ministry staged a public competition to design new graphic health warnings for alcoholic beverage packaging. The competition requires that entries:

  • may use any graphic design technique including painting and photography;
  • must warn the public of the harms and consequences of alcoholic beverage consumption;
  • must aim at deterring children, teenagers, and the public to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages;
  • must also contain “warning phrases;” and
  • must comply with all relevant intellectual property (IP) laws and be new and not previously submitted in any other contest or published in any magazine or website.

Contest participants must agree to transfer all IP rights related to the submission to the Thai Alcohol Control Committee. Prizes of THB 2,000 to THB 50,000 were offered for the winning designs, and the deadline for submissions was August 31. The competition is a clear attempt to drum up support for the imposition of graphic health warnings and raise significant awareness of the issue.

However, the delegation of this part of the regulatory process to the general public is bound to raise questions about whether any notification or regulation is based on internationally recognized principles of evidence-based policymaking. As such, can it be demonstrated to be an effective and proportionate measure to tackle genuine public health and social harms associated with alcoholic beverages?

The blanket imposition of large graphic health warnings on all alcoholic beverage products is also likely to meet opposition from manufacturers and importers on the basis that it unreasonably restricts their right to use their lawfully registered trademarks to market their legal products to adult consumers.

Ministerial notifications are, however, subject to legal challenge in the Administrative Court, which has the power to overturn or amend unlawful acts by administrative agencies or state officials. The court may issue an injunctive order suspending execution of the measure pending the outcome of the challenge.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals
Aaron Le Marquer
Partner and Deputy Director, Dispute Resolution
Thailand
+66 2056 5555
Email

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Intellectual Property

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat. As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap. The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations. What Is Cultivated Meat? Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production. The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption. Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product. Thailand’s Safety
Read More
September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More