When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections.
The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank.
This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below.
Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony
In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures.
However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse.
Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions
The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the bank’s argument that the unauthorized transactions could not have resulted from system vulnerabilities.
Finding 3: Inadequate Evidence Collection
The court also noted the bank’s failure to obtain crucial evidence. The signature on the receipt from the disputed transaction differed significantly from the signature on the customer’s credit card, making CCTV footage from the merchant necessary to determine who was actually using the card for the transaction.
The bank argued that it could not obtain this footage because it was not the “injured party” and only the police could request it. However, the bank made no effort to ask the police, the customer, or the court to facilitate obtaining the footage. This lack of diligence led the Supreme Court to conclude that the bank had failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the authenticity of the transaction.
Implications for Financial Institutions
Thailand’s Supreme Court ultimately emphasized that banks providing credit card services have a duty to monitor and verify card usage to prevent harmful conduct such as fraud and unauthorized access. When customers dispute transactions, banks must conduct thorough investigations and explain their findings to the customer, rather than relying solely on contractual clauses to shift the burden to cardholders. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s claim, ruling that the customer was not liable for the unauthorized transactions.
This precedent establishes a more rigorous standard of proof for banks in cases involving unauthorized credit card transactions. The court’s findings—particularly regarding the lack of expert testimony, the vulnerabilities acknowledged in the terms and conditions, and the insufficient effort to obtain crucial evidence—underscore that banks must now demonstrate a higher level of diligence and responsibility. They are expected not only to maintain secure systems but also to actively investigate disputed transactions and present credible, comprehensive evidence to support their claims. The ruling confirms the principle that, in Thailand, the burden of ensuring the integrity of credit card usage rests primarily with the bank. This is a strong stance in favor of consumer protection, and raises expectations placed on financial institutions in similar disputes.
