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​ 

September 7, 2026
On September 4, 2026, Thailand’s prime minister convened the first meeting of the Data Center Business Policy Committee. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework for the data center industry and tasked four subcommittees with developing the standards that would sit beneath it, shifting away from fragmented, agency-by-agency approvals toward a unified national strategy aiming to maximize economic value while managing environmental and infrastructure concerns. Proposed Scope and Pillars of the National Data Center Policy Framework The proposed framework would cover all types of data centers, including internal or captive facilities operated within a company or its affiliates, rather than only commercial third-party providers. If adopted in this form, companies running private data centers purely for internal purposes would also become subject to regulatory oversight. Minimum safety and operational standards would be established, with uniform enforcement across all categories. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework with four key pillars: Industrial classification: Data centers exceeding 2 MW would be classified as industrial operations, which may require factory licenses and environmental impact assessments under the Factory Act. Resource pricing: Utility rates would be structured to reflect both direct and indirect costs, supporting green energy and green data center standards. Centralized screening: A centralized review would evaluate project suitability and resource allocation. Operators may be required to submit proposals through periodic “pitching” rounds, where projects are competitively assessed on their potential economic and strategic benefits to Thailand. Digital ecosystem: The framework would prioritize data sovereignty, tax incentives, and conditions promoting domestic digital businesses, AI, and cloud infrastructure. Multidimensional Evaluation Criteria and Subcommittees Four subcommittees will be established to develop standards responsible for the following dimensions: Economic: Criteria for assessing the economic viability of data center projects, for use in prioritizing data centers based on infrastructure readiness, demand type (including AI factories),
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
August 25, 2026
Vietnam has enacted a new decree establishing administrative penalties for violations in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection. Decree No. 330/2026/NĐ-CP (Decree 330), issued and effective from August 19, 2026, provides a detailed sanctions framework for noncompliance with the Law on Personal Data Protection (including its implementing regulations under Decree 356/2025/ND-CP) and the Law on Cybersecurity, together with their guiding decrees. The issuance of Decree 330 signals that the practical grace period previously perceived by many businesses may be drawing to a close, with active regulatory enforcement in these areas expected to commence in earnest. Scope and Key Provisions Decree 330 has extraterritorial effect and applies to both onshore and offshore companies. For offshore companies, it applies to those that (1) provide telecommunications, internet, online-content, information-technology, cybersecurity, or cross-border services and (2) are involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and certain other people of Vietnamese origin. Decree 330’s key provisions cover the following areas: Administrative penalties for violations relating to the protection of national security and public order in cyberspace, including the dissemination of unlawful, false, or unverified information. Sanctions for cyberattacks, unauthorized access, introduction of harmful code or programs, and failure to cooperate with specialized cybersecurity forces. Sanctions for personal data protection violations, such as consent, cross-border data transfers, impact assessments, breach notification, and data-subject rights, among others—with maximum fines of up to 5% of an organization’s preceding-year revenue for cross-border transfer violations, or up to VND 3 billion for other data-protection breaches. Personal Data Protection Penalties The key sanctions for personal data protection violations are as follows: Consent violations: Fines of up to VND 70 million (approx. USD 2,642), plus potential additional sanctions and remedial measures including irreversible deletion of personal data collected without consent and confiscation of