Product Liability & Safety 2024 Comparisons

General

The Consumer Protection Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) (the “Consumer Protection Act”) is the main law in Thailand which seeks to provide protection to consumers from unfair practices, including in matters relating to advertising, labelling and contracts. One of the specific matters governed by the Consumer Protection Act is product safety.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, products which are sold, offered or marketed by business operators must be safe. Various matters may be considered in relation to how to make the product safe, including:

• the type of product;
• the product’s design;
• the product’s label; and
• the generally accepted safety standards for such product.

The business operator must also not manufacture, import for sale or advertise any product which is unsafe.

Sector-Specific Criteria

Other specific criteria may also be issued for certain products in order for the business operator to provide additional safeguards to prevent possible harm for consumers (eg, products which contain asbestos or melamine). Certain products may be banned from selling due to safety concerns (eg, baraku and e-cigarette).

In addition to the Consumer Protection Act, there are other laws which may govern safety issues around other specific types of products, including:

• the Drug Act, B.E. 2510 (1967), which governs the safety of drugs;
• the Food Act, B.E. 2522 (1979), which governs the safety of foods;
• the Medical Device Act, B.E. 2551 (2008), which governs the safety of medical devices;
• the Cosmetics Act, B.E. 2558 (2015), which governs the safety of cosmetics;
• the Hazardous Substance Act, B.E. 2535 (1992), which provides the requirements for controlling the use of substances which are deemed to be hazardous; and
• the Industrial Product Standard Act, B.E. 2511 (1968), which prescribes safety standard for certain industrial products.

The Consumer Protection Act established the Consumer Protection Committee to oversee and regulate adherence to the Consumer Protection Act.

Additionally, the Consumer Protection Act established other subcommittees to oversee and regulate the specific matters which are controlled under the Consumer Protection Act, including the Products and Services Safety Committee.

The Products and Services Safety Committee has the authority to issue specific regulations to regulate product safety matters. For example, under the Consumer Protection Act, the Products and Services Safety Committee is empowered to set out the criteria and methods for notifying the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) when a business operator finds that its product is a dangerous one.

Although the Consumer Protection Act empowers the aforementioned committees, the main regulator, which handles product safety issues on a day-to-day basis, is the OCPB. As the primary regulator, the OCPB also handles product complaints and investigations.

Furthermore, as noted in 1.1 Product Safety Legal Framework, certain products are controlled under specific laws and such laws may have a specific regulator. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees and regulates safety issues which specifically relate to food, drugs, medical devices and cosmetic products.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, in the event that a business operator finds out, or is informed that, a product which it manufactures, imports or sells is dangerous, the business operator is required to carry out corrective measures to prevent or eliminate the danger. These include rectifying the safety issue, changing the product or undertaking a product recall.

The business operator must also inform the OCPB in writing of the corrective measures that it is taking without delay (no more than five days from the date on which it starts to undertake the corrective measures).

In the event that there is reason to suspect that a product may be dangerous, the Products and Services Safety Committee also has the authority to issue orders to the business operator. These include orders for the business operator to undertake tests to prove the product’s safety or orders for the business operator to stop manufacturing, importing or selling the product.

Where the Products and Services Safety Committee issues an order for the business operator to stop selling the product, the business operator is required to, amongst other matters, recall the product and notify/advertise the measures that it is taking to consumers. The business operator is also required to submit its corrective plans, including the plans related to the product recall and the remediation measures for consumers, to the Products and Services Safety Committee. Such plans are subject to the Products and Services Safety Committee’s review and approval, and must also be notified/advertised to consumers.

The methods for notifying/advertising to consumers regarding the aforementioned issues may be subject to the OCPB’s specific guidelines.

In addition to the requirements under the Consumer Protection Act, other laws may contain obligations regarding the corrective measures which must be undertaken by business operators (eg, the laws which the FDA is empowered to enforce).

In addition to the issues highlighted in 1.3 Obligations to Commence Corrective Action, the business operator is required to notify the OCPB without delay where a product is found to be dangerous, or where a product causes death or injury (including injury to the mind and the properties of others).

The specific criteria and methods for making the notification will be as prescribed by the Products and Services Safety Committee.

In addition to the requirements under the Consumer Protection Act, other laws may contain notification obligations that must be undertaken by business operators (eg, the laws which the FDA is empowered to enforce).

The penalties for breaching the product safety requirements under the Consumer Protection Act will depend on the specific offence that may have been committed. The penalties include criminal fines and/or imprisonment.

Where the offence is committed by a juristic entity (legal person), the directors, managers or other persons responsible for the operation of that juristic entity may also be held liable if they were involved in the commission of the offence through their actions or inactions.

As the product safety requirements under the Consumer Protection Act were only recently introduced in 2019, at present there are no specific examples of companies which have been prosecuted or fined for breaching these obligations.

There are two specific laws which relate to product liability, namely: the Liability for Injuries from Unsafe Products Act, B.E. 2551 (2008) (the “Product Liability Act”), and the Consumer Case Procedure Act, B.E. 2551 (2008) (the “Consumer Case Procedure Act”).

The main cause of action for a product liability claim is that the injured party suffers damages from an unsafe product, where that product has been sold to the consumer, irrespective of whether such damages are a result of a wilful or a negligent act of the relevant business operators. In such cases, the relevant business operators will be held jointly liable.

The term “business operator” means the manufacturer (or the hirer of the manufacturer) or importer of the products (or the seller of the products where the manufacturer or importer cannot be identified). Persons who use a name, tradename, trademark or other marks which lead to the understanding that they are the manufacturer (or the hirer of the manufacturer) or importer of the products may also be held liable.

The term “unsafe” means a product which causes (or may cause) damages as a result of a manufacturing or design defect; or because the appropriate instructions for using or storing the products, warnings or other information regarding the product were not provided (or where it was provided but the information was inaccurate or insufficient). Consideration must also be given to the specific conditions of the products, as well as the way that the products may be used or stored under normal and expected conditions.

The term “product” covers all types of movable property, including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding certain products specified in subsequent Ministerial Regulations.

Types of products that have been exempted so far include agricultural products created by nature, agricultural produce grown by farmers that originated in Thailand, as well as drugs and medical devices manufactured by public healthcare service providers specifically to treat individual patients or animals, or those manufactured pursuant to the public healthcare service provider’s orders.

The person (or the legal representative of that person) who suffers damages from an unsafe product can bring a claim.

The OCPB (as well as associations or foundations that have been certified by the OCPB) also has the authority to bring a claim on behalf of the consumer.

The time limit to exercise a claim for a product liability case is three years from the date the injured person becomes aware of the damage and the business operator that is responsible, or ten years from the date on which the product was sold.

In the event of damages that are caused by substances that build up in the body of the injured person, or where it may take time for the symptoms to show, the time limit to exercise a claim is three years from the date of becoming aware of the damage and the business operator that is responsible, but not more than ten years from the date of first becoming aware of the damage.

The Product Liability Act and the Consumer Case Procedure Act do not provide any specific jurisdictional requirements.

The general provisions of the jurisdiction of Thai courts will therefore be applied. Generally, if the injured person or business operator resides in Thailand, or if the damage arises in Thailand, or if the business operator has property that may be enforced by a judgment in Thailand, then the Thai courts may have jurisdiction.

There are no specific mandatory steps that must be taken before proceedings can be commenced formally for product liability cases.

Under the Consumer Case Procedure Act, specific rules regarding the preservation of evidence may be applied.

If a person, or a party to a case, fears that evidence on which they may rely might be lost or prove difficult to produce at a later time, that person or party may file a claim before the court requesting that it hear such evidence immediately.

In the case of an emergency, the claimant may also ask the court to order the seizure of evidence, under conditions set by the court.

Any person who fails to comply with an order of the court may also be held liable for a criminal offence (which may include criminal fines and/or imprisonment terms).

There are no specific rules relating to the disclosure of documents or other evidence in product liability cases.

However, under the Consumer Case Procedure Act, the court will be responsible for asking the witnesses questions while parties to the case (or their lawyers) can only do so with the court’s permission. To this end, the court is empowered to ask the witnesses about any facts which it considers to be connected with the case, even if these issues are not raised by one of the parties.

In the interest of justice, the courts themselves may also order other evidence to be produced.

There are no specific rules relating to expert evidence in product liability cases.

However, under the Consumer Case Procedure Act, the courts themselves may ask expert witnesses to provide testimony in a case. In such cases, the courts must provide the parties to the case with the appropriate opportunity to call their own expert witnesses to provide counter-arguments or additional testimony.

Furthermore, the general provisions relating to expert evidence (which allow both parties to request expert evidence) also apply to product liability cases.

In order to make a claim in relation to an unsafe product, the injured party needs to prove that they received the damage from the business operators’ product, and that the product was used or stored in its normal state. However, the injured party does not have to prove which business operator actually caused the damage.

The burden of proof is on the business operator to prove that it should not be liable for the damage that was caused by the product. To do so, the business operator must prove that:

• the product is not an unsafe product;
• the injured party knew that the product was an unsafe product; or
• the damage was caused because the injured party did not use or store the products in accordance with the instructions for using or storing the products, warnings or other information regarding the products, which had been accurately and sufficiently provided by the business operator.

Additionally, under the Consumer Case Procedure Act, where there are any arguments regarding the facts related to the manufacture, design or composition of the product, if the court is of the view that such facts are known specifically by the party which is the business operator then the burden of proof in relation to such matters will fall on the business operator.

Product liability cases will be filed with the civil courts and these cases will be decided by judges. There are no specific thresholds of awards in these courts. However, it should be noted that the Thai courts will generally only provide awards for actual damages which have been proven to the satisfaction of the court.

However, in the case of claims for liability under the Product Liability Act, the courts may also award additional compensation for mental damages arising from damage to the body or wellbeing of the injured party. Punitive damages not exceeding two times the compensation granted may also be awarded where the business operators have produced, imported or sold the products knowing that the products are unsafe, or fail to be aware of such facts due to gross negligence.

Under the Consumer Case Procedure Act, if the actual damages do not exceed THB50,000 (approximately USD1,480; this is based on the exchange rate at the time of writing and may be subject to change (this applies wherever an approximate USD amount is provided throughout this guide)), the courts are empowered to award punitive damages in amounts not exceeding five times the amount of the actual damages.

The consumer case procedure described in the Consumer Case Procedure Act will apply to product liability cases.

The appeal mechanisms for a product liability case are stipulated in the Consumer Case Procedure Act. A product liability case can be appealed within one month from the day the court read the judgment or order.

However, a product liability case with the value of not more than THB50,000 (approximately USD1,480) may not be appealed on issues related to the facts of the case.

As noted in 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases, the main defences available to business operators in product liability cases are that:

• the product is not an unsafe product;
• the injured party knew that the product was an unsafe product; or
• the damage was caused because the injured party did not use or store the products in accordance with the instructions for using or storing the products, warnings or other information regarding the products, which had been accurately and sufficiently provided by the business operator.

Adherence to regulatory requirements may be one of the relevant considerations in product liability cases.

More specifically, it is possible that this issue may be a factor in determining whether or not the product was in fact unsafe (eg, was the product manufactured in accordance with the required regulatory standards or was the product labelled correctly in accordance with the requirements which are applicable to the specific product).

This is not, however, to say that adherence to regulatory requirements in itself will automatically mean that the product is not an unsafe one. Again, the business operator would still be required to provide the defences as mentioned in 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases and 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims.

Under the Consumer Case Procedure Act, the court fees will generally be exempted for the consumer (or the legal representative of the consumer).

However, the court may also order the consumer to pay all or any part of the exempted fees, for the reasons stipulated in the Consumer Case Procedure Act. These include the court finding that the consumer filed the claim without any appropriate reason or seeks inappropriate amounts of damages. If the consumer fails to pay the fees as ordered by the court, the court may order the case to be dismissed.

The court may also, at its discretion, order the business operator to pay the court fees for the injured person.

Generally, the successful party may also seek to recover costs associated with the litigation by including those costs in its request for awards. However, any such award would be subject to the discretion of the court.

There is no litigation funding provided by third parties in Thailand. Contingency fee and “no win, no fee” arrangements are not permissible.

As noted in 2.2 Standing to Bring Product Liability Claims, the Consumer Protection Committee (or the OCPB), as well as associations or foundations which have been certified by the OCPB, also have the authority to bring a claim on behalf of the consumer.

Class actions are also available in product liability cases and have started to be used in practice. To file a class action suit, the plaintiffs must have the same legal claims arising from the same facts and legal grounds, and must fulfil the specific condition of being of the same group.

There is one significant recent product liability claim in Thailand, which is a class action case between car business operators and nine consumers. Even though currently this is only the decision of the court of first instance, and the court’s interpretation and decision may be changed by higher courts, interesting interpretations of the Product Liability Act are provided in this case.

The nine consumers filed a claim to the court against three defendants that they suffered damages from cars that they had purchased. The cases involved (i) the owner of the cars’ trademark, (ii) the manufacturer of the cars’ parts sold to the owner of the cars’ trademark, and (iii) the company that assembled cars on behalf of the owner of the cars’ trademark. The problems faced by the consumers included engine shaking, the motor oil level abruptly rising, incorrect cylinders firing, strange diesel particles in the filter system, the car’s incapacity to operate and overconsumption of gasoline.

It appears that the court interpreted the term “business operator” under the Product Liability Act to mean a person who utilises a trademark to give customers the impression that they are the manufacturer. Based on the court’s decision, because the defendants in (ii) and (iii) exclusively produced and assembled automobiles for the owner of the cars’ brand, the court determined that the sole “business operator” under the Product Liability Act in this case is the owner of the cars’ trademark.

This court’s view also demonstrates that mental injury compensation is practically enforceable. That is, the court determined that the existence of these car problems had injured the consumers’ mental health since the customers would have been anxious that their vehicles might be unsafe, even if they did not suffer any physical harm. As a result, the court ruled that these cars are unsafe products under the Product Liability Act and ordered the owner of the cars’ trademark to compensate each purchaser THB30,000 (about USD850) plus the cost of any necessary repairs. 

However, for punitive damages, the owner of the cars’ trademark was able to demonstrate in court that it took appropriate attempt to identify and resolve problems with the cars as soon as it became aware of them. Ultimately, the court did not order the owner of the cars’ trademark to be liable for punitive damages. This could become one of a precedence for punitive damages in the future.

The key interesting interpretations of the Product Liability Act from this case may be summarised as follows:

• the damage was considered to be caused though there was merely damage to the mental health (and not physical health);
• damages for mental health can be awarded in practice;
• a person or company that uses a trademark that leads to the understanding that it is the manufacturer would be regarded as a business operator under the Product Liability Act; and
• putting appropriate and best effort to address issues and repair unsafe products could reduce the possibility of punitive damages.

Thailand has started to see an increase in class actions that relate to product liability claims (eg, the use of class actions for products in the automotive industry). However, such cases are still limited. The aforementioned increase may have more to do with a rise in consumer awareness (as opposed to any significant changes to product liability and safety laws). For further discussion, please refer to the Thailand Trends and Developments article in this Global Practice Guide.

Although there have been no recent significant developments in Thailand’s product liability laws themselves, there has been an update with respect to the law governing defective products, ie the draft Defective Product Liability Bill. For further discussion, please refer to the Thailand Trends and Developments article in this Global Practice Guide.