Tag: Consumer Protection

on by

Thai Cabinet Acknowledges Delay in Issuing Integrated Ticketing Regulations

On 20 October 2026, the Thai Cabinet acknowledged the explanation of the Ministry of Transport (the “MOT”) for its delay in issuing subordinate legislation under the Integrated Ticketing System Management Act B.E. 2568 (2025) (the “Act”). The MOT attributed the delay to extended public consultation requirements and additional discussions with transport operators, which prevented it from meeting the statutory deadline of 25 June 2026. Although the subordinate legislation has not yet been issued, the MOT has completed drafting all 20 instruments of subordinate legislation and expects to issue them by the end of 2026.

Background

The Act came into force on 28 December 2025. It establishes a legal framework for an integrated ticketing system that allows passengers to use a single ticket or payment method across different modes of public transportation, including electric trains, buses, conventional trains and boats. By simplifying travel and supporting more affordable fares, the Act aims to encourage greater use of public transportation, reduce traffic congestion and lessen environmental impact.

The Act establishes a regulatory framework covering the following key matters:

  • Integrated ticketing and fares: The Act provides for an integrated ticketing system and authorizes the MOT to prescribe integrated fare rates, which government agencies must use as the basis for future public transport concession agreements.
  • Regulatory oversight: The Act creates the Integrated Ticketing System Policy Committee, which determines policies, technological standards and principles for calculating integrated fares.
  • Licensing requirements: Operators of central revenue management centers, fare card issuance services and integrated ticketing services must obtain licenses from the Minister of Transport.
  • Financial support: The Act creates the Integrated Ticketing System Promotion Fund to support the development and operation of the system, including through loans to eligible private operators. Operators seeking financial support must hold the licenses required under the Act.
  • Mandatory participation: Certain public transport services may be designated by Royal Decree as required to participate in the integrated ticketing system and to comply with the applicable licensing requirements.
  • Enforcement and penalties: The Act imposes monetary penalties for certain violations by licensed operators and criminal penalties for unauthorized operations and other offenses.

While the Act sets out the overall regulatory framework, detailed requirements on fare structures, licensing procedures and operational standards must be prescribed through subordinate legislations. To ensure timely implementation, Section 53 of the Act requires that such legislation be issued within 180 days from the effective date of the Act, or by 25 June 2026. If the MOT cannot meet this deadline, it must report the reasons for the delay to the Cabinet for acknowledgment.

Reasons for the Delay

As the statutory deadline was not met, the MOT reported the following two reasons for the delay to the Cabinet in accordance with Section 53 of the Act.

1. Extended public consultation requirements

Under the revised public consultation guidelines issued in 2026 pursuant to the Act on Legislative Drafting and Evaluation of Law B.E. 2562 (2019), the minimum online public consultation period was extended from 15 to 30 days. The guidelines also require consultation at two stages: (i) when the key principles of the legislation are proposed and (ii) after the draft legislation has been prepared. These additional requirements extended the drafting process beyond the original schedule.

2. Additional consultations with transport operators

The proposed subordinate legislation directly affects fare collection and revenue allocation among different public transport operators. The MOT therefore needed additional time to consult relevant operators and stakeholders on technical and operational matters, to ensure that the proposed requirements are practical and can be implemented effectively.

Current Status and Next Steps

The MOT also reported that it has completed drafting all 20 instruments of subordinate legislation, although none have yet been issued. The drafts cover licensing, operational and technological standards, integrated fares, revenue management, fund administration, reporting obligations, license transfers, service suspension or termination, and enforcement measures. The MOT expects to issue all 20 instruments by the end of 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • Although the Act is already in force, its full implementation depends on the issuance of subordinate legislation governing integrated fares, licensing and system operations.
  • The missed statutory deadline does not affect the legal validity of the Act, and the MOT remains responsible for issuing the required subordinate legislation.
  • With all 20 drafts completed and issuance expected by the end of 2026, public transport operators and related businesses should monitor regulatory developments and prepare for potential operational and compliance requirements.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Proposed Super License System for Hotel Businesses in Thailand

1. Background

The Office of the Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) has made further progress on the proposed “Super License” system, as confirmed in a recent update by the Deputy Government Spokesperson. This article builds on our earlier coverage (Accommodation Reform: Proposed Super License and Stronger Guest Protections) regarding the proposed Accommodation Act B.E. …. (“the Accommodation Act”) and on our analysis of the Draft Act on Facilitation in the Consideration of Licenses and Provision of Services to the Public B.E. …. It examines the proposed licensing framework, the application procedures, the legislative status, and the implications for hotel operators and investors in Thailand.

2. Licensing Framework

2.1 Primary License (the “Super License”)

It is proposed that hotel business licenses for Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4, as classified under the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Types and Criteria for Hotel Business Operations B.E. 2551 (2008) issued by the virtue of the Hotel Act B.E. 2547 (2004), be designated as the primary license under the Super License system. An operator applying for the primary license may also apply for secondary licenses covering other activities associated with hotel operations, as specified in the Royal Decree that will be issued by the virtue of the Accommodation Act.

2.2 Secondary Licenses

Licenses and authorizations required under specific legislation for activities associated with hotel operations are proposed to be designated as secondary licenses. Operators may consider applying for one or more of them together with their Super License application. The proposed categories are:

  • Businesses that may be hazardous to health (public health law): hotels and other temporary accommodation, fitness centers, swimming pools, theaters, entertainment activities, amusement parks, bowling alleys, game arcades, beauty salons, golf courses, laundry services and EV charging stations.
  • Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage facilities: licenses or notifications for consumer facilities under fuel control law.
  • Entertainment establishments: licenses under entertainment establishment law.
  • Karaoke businesses: licenses under film and video law.
  • Liquor sales: licenses under excise tax law.
  • Tobacco sales: licenses under excise tax law.
  • Zoos: licenses to establish and operate a zoo under wildlife conservation law.
  • Structures encroaching on rivers or waterways: licenses for construction activities not subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report.

Whether each activity is ultimately included as a secondary license will depend on its relevance to hotel operations, the authority granted under the applicable legislation, and the relevant licensing requirements.

3. Application and Licensing Procedures

To improve licensing efficiency, eliminate procedural duplication and reduce the administrative burden on operators, it is proposed that all applications be submitted and processed through an electronic system.

3.1 Submission of Applications

The Department of Provincial Administration is proposed to act as the receiving authority for Super License applications and for any accompanying secondary license applications.

3.2 Verification of Applications and Supporting Documents

Once the Department of Provincial Administration has verified that the applications and supporting documents are accurate and complete, it will forward them to the agencies responsible for the respective secondary licenses. Each agency will then review the application within its statutory powers and duties.

3.3 Integrated On-Site Inspections

Where an on-site inspection is required before a license can be granted, the relevant licensing authorities are expected to coordinate their inspections and, where practicable, conduct them jointly in a single visit. The Department of Provincial Administration will coordinate the process, set the inspection date and time, and notify the relevant agencies in advance.

3.4 Issuance of the License

Upon approval, a single Super License is proposed to be issued, specifying the activities for which the license holder has obtained the relevant secondary licenses and is authorized to operate.

3.5 Refusal of the Super License

If the Department of Provincial Administration refuses to grant the Super License, all secondary license applications submitted in the same application will be deemed refused. An applicant wishing to appeal must submit the appeal electronically to the relevant licensing authority. The criteria, procedures and time limits for filing and considering appeals will be governed by the applicable legislation.

Where the refusal concerns only a secondary license, the applicant may proceed with the remaining secondary license applications without appealing the refusal.

3.6 Validity Period

A secondary license may be granted the same five-year validity period as the primary license. To obtain this, the applicant must notify the Department of Provincial Administration at the time of application and pay the fees for the full five-year validity period of each relevant secondary license.

4. Legislative Status

The OPDC is currently drafting the proposed Accommodation Act. A public consultation on the principles of the Super License system for hotel businesses is open from 19 October to 17 November 2026.

No timeline for enactment of the Accommodation Act has been announced. The Deputy Government Spokesperson has, however, recently given an update on the initiative as can be found here.

5. Recommended Actions for Operators and Investors

  • Participate in the public consultation: Hotel operators and other interested stakeholders are encouraged to submit comments on the principles and details of the proposed Royal Decree through the official consultation portal.
  • Review existing licenses and business plans: Existing operators should monitor how their current licenses and approvals will be treated under the new framework. Investors should assess their business plans against the licensing classifications and requirements that are ultimately adopted.

6. Key Takeaways

  • Single and coordinated process: Type 1–4 hotel licenses are proposed to serve as the primary license, allowing operators to apply for related secondary licenses in one process.
  • Broad secondary scope: Secondary licenses would cover hotel-related activities such as health-hazardous businesses, entertainment establishments, karaoke, liquor and tobacco sales, zoos and certain structures encroaching on rivers or waterways.
  • Centralized administration: The Department of Provincial Administration would be the single point for receiving applications and coordinating with the licensing authorities.
  • Expected benefits: The initiative aims to simplify licensing procedures, shorten processing times and reduce costs for hotel operators.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Accommodation Reform: Proposed Super License and Stronger Guest Protections

Background

Thailand’s tourism sector has changed considerably, with rising numbers of international visitors and the emergence of new forms of accommodation. The legal framework, however, has struggled to keep pace. Homestays, hostels, boutique hotels, tents, rafts, and tree houses do not always fit requirements designed for conventional hotels and permanent buildings, and operators of these businesses often find compliance difficult. Meanwhile, traditional hotels that also run restaurants, spas, and other facilities must navigate multiple separate licensing processes.

In response, the proposed Accommodation Act B.E. …. (the “Accommodation Act”) aims to replace the Hotel Act B.E. 2547 (2004) with a modern framework that better reflects the current accommodation landscape. The Immigration Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (the “Immigration Act”), which has been in force since 1979, is also the subject of proposed amendments.

This article updates our previous article on Thailand’s hotel and accommodation regulations, available here.

Current Status

  • Immigration Act: The House of Representatives approved the draft amendment on 30 September 2026. The draft regulates the residence notification of foreigners and converts certain administrative fines into criminal penalties. The House also endorsed committee observations that the law should be aligned with the hotel law (which the proposed Accommodation Act is intended to replace) and that persons who accommodate foreigners should be supervised.
  • Accommodation Act: The Cabinet approved the draft in principle on 29 September 2026.

A Tiered Approach Based on Size and Risk

The proposed Accommodation Act would divide accommodation establishments into three categories, each requiring notification, registration, or licensing according to size, characteristics, and risk:

  • Category 1 – Notification (operate after notifying the registrar): hotels with up to 8 rooms and up to 30 guests; temporary residential accommodation (houses or rooms) with up to 8 units.
  • Category 2 – Registration (register with the registrar before operating): hotels with more than 8 but not more than 40 rooms, or more than 30 but not more than 150 guests; temporary residential accommodation with more than 8 but not more than 40 units.
  • Category 3 – Licensing (license required before operating): hotels with more than 40 rooms or more than 150 guests; temporary residential accommodation with more than 40 units.

The Minister of Interior may prescribe further types, kinds, or formats of accommodation by ministerial regulation.

This structure gives operators good reason to examine their planned room capacity and operating model before investing in a new property or expanding an existing one. A business’s marketing label, whether “homestay,” “boutique hotel,” or otherwise, should not be assumed to determine its legal classification.

For smaller operators, the proposed Accommodation Act could offer a more practical route into the regulated market, although this will depend on the requirements attached to each category and how they are administered. Property owners should also distinguish between the prospect of reform and permission to operate today. In particular, anyone considering short-term residential rentals should review the final legislation and other applicable requirements before proceeding.

What Would the Super License Cover?

The “Super License” would serve as the principal business license for Category 3 establishments, reducing the number of separate licenses an operator must obtain. Applicants who state their intention at the time of application could seek associated approvals covering up to ten activities. Examples identified by the government include premises selling or storing food; health establishments such as spas; swimming pools; fitness facilities; entertainment venues; premises using liquefied petroleum gas; and the sale of alcohol and tobacco. The mechanism would still need to be aligned with the laws governing each activity.

Hotels and resorts offering several of these services could benefit from a more coordinated application process. For an operator planning a restaurant, spa, gym, and pool within one property, the key questions would be which approvals can be handled together and what supporting documents each authority requires.

However, the term “Super License” should not lead business operators to assume that every activity is automatically authorized. Construction schedules, hotel management agreements, and acquisition documents should continue to identify the approvals required for each service and who will be responsible for obtaining them.

Advertising Would Carry Greater Contractual Weight

Under the proposed Accommodation Act, the information an operator presents to prospective guests, including accommodation rates, booking terms, advertising, and promotional statements, would form part of the contract with the guest. As international arrivals continue to grow, the Act would strengthen consumer protection by giving guests rights to cancel and to receive a proportionate refund where the accommodation or related services do not match what was advertised. Specified unfair booking conditions would also be prohibited.

This warrants attention beyond a routine review of standard terms and conditions. A room advertised with a sea view, a pool that is closed, or a package promising unavailable services could each become a source of dispute. Operators should therefore:

  • ensure that their own websites and booking-platform listings describe the same offering;
  • communicate any changes to guests before arrival;
  • establish a workable process for handling complaints and deciding when a refund is appropriate; and
  • where bookings are made through intermediaries, set out in the commercial agreement who updates listings, informs guests, and processes refunds.

Introduction of an Electronic System

The proposed Accommodation Act also introduces an electronic system to oversee and regulate accommodation businesses. The system would facilitate guest registration and reporting, license applications, and other regulatory procedures, and would serve as the primary channel of communication between operators and the relevant authorities, making administrative processes more accessible and efficient.

What Operators Should Do Now

The final text and implementing rules will determine how far the reform changes day-to-day operations. Existing businesses should monitor how their current approvals would be treated, while investors should test their plans against the eventual classification and approval requirements.

In the meantime, operators may find it useful to review:

  • property descriptions and booking conditions;
  • readiness to adopt the electronic system;
  • associated business licenses; and
  • allocation of responsibilities under management contracts.

Overall, the proposed reform seeks to move away from a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach toward a framework that reflects the size, nature, and risk level of each accommodation business.

Key Takeaways

  • The proposal seeks to make accommodation regulation better suited to businesses of different sizes and formats.
  • The Super License could simplify associated approvals for Category 3 establishments, but its scope and conditions will be important.
  • Operators should monitor and ensure that advertising, booking terms, and services actually provided are consistent. They also need to monitor on its obligation regarding notifying of the foreigner who are under their supervision under the new legislations to be enacted.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Cabinet Approves Negotiation Framework and Acknowledges Composition of Delegation for CBD COP 17

Introduction

On 14 October 2026, the Thai Cabinet, as proposed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (the “MNRE”), approved Thailand’s negotiation framework and acknowledged the composition of the Thai delegation for the following meetings (collectively, the “Meetings”):

  1. the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD COP 17”);
  2. the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (“CP-MOP 12”); and
  3. the 6th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol (“NP-MOP 6”).

The Meetings commenced on 19 October 2026 and are scheduled to conclude on 30 October 2026 in Yerevan, Armenia.

Thailand’s participation aims to contribute to international decision-making on biodiversity and to apply the outcomes in developing national policies and measures suited to Thailand’s circumstances. It is also expected to strengthen Thailand’s role in international discussions and promote cooperation on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Background and Global Biodiversity Goals

On 29 January 2004, Thailand became a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (the “CBD”), which aims to conserve biodiversity, promote its sustainable use, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources.

To advance these objectives, the Parties to the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (the “KM-GBF”) at the second part of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (“CBD COP 15 Part 2”) in December 2022. The KM-GBF serves as a global framework for biodiversity action. It establishes a 2030 Mission and targets to guide efforts towards its long-term goals for 2050:

  • 2030 Mission and Targets: To halt and reverse biodiversity loss and put nature on a path to recovery by 2030, supported by 23 targets (the “2030 Targets”) covering ecosystem conservation and restoration, species protection, pollution reduction, the sustainable use of biodiversity, fair and equitable benefit-sharing, and financial support.
  • 2050 Goals: Four long-term goals addressing (i) the conservation and restoration of biodiversity; (ii) the sustainable use of biodiversity; (iii) the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources; and (iv) the financial and other resources needed to implement the KM-GBF.

Key Focus of the Meetings

A key focus of the Meetings, particularly CBD COP 17, will be to review the implementation of the KM-GBF, assess collective progress towards the 2030 Targets and 2050 Goals, identify achievements and implementation challenges, and determine where further action is needed.

The Meetings will also consider measures to accelerate implementation, particularly through increased financial support, stronger international cooperation and enhanced national efforts to achieve global biodiversity goals.

Thailand’s Position and Participation

1. Thailand’s Negotiation Framework

The negotiation framework, prepared by the MNRE through the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (“ONEP”), is based on two key principles:

  • Multilateral cooperation: Support international cooperation and consensus-based decision-making to advance the objectives of the CBD, its related protocols and the KM-GBF, while safeguarding Thailand’s national interests.
  • Equity and national sovereignty: Promote sustainable development, respect countries’ sovereign rights over biological and genetic resources, and take into account the needs, priorities and circumstances of developing countries.

Thailand will also seek to advance key issues, namely biodiversity financing, nature restoration, fair and equitable benefit-sharing from digital sequence information on genetic resources, local community participation, and the integration of biodiversity conservation into relevant sectors.

2. Composition of the Thai Delegation

The Thai delegation will be led by the Permanent Secretary of the MNRE and will comprise representatives of the following 10 government agencies:

  • Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning;
  • Department of Marine and Coastal Resources;
  • Department of Water Resources;
  • Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation;
  • Department of International Organizations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
  • Department of Fisheries;
  • Office of the National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council;
  • Thailand Science Research and Innovation;
  • National Science and Technology Development Agency; and
  • Biodiversity-Based Economy Development Office (Public Organization).

Key Takeaways

  • A key focus of the Meetings, particularly CBD COP 17, will be to review the implementation of the KM-GBF and assess collective progress towards the 2030 Targets and 2050 Goals.
  • Thailand will emphasize multilateral cooperation, sustainable development, equity, and national sovereignty over biological and genetic resources, while advancing key issues such as biodiversity financing and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.
  • Decisions adopted at the Meetings may influence Thailand’s future biodiversity policies and measures and may, in some cases, require amendments to domestic laws. Further developments should therefore be monitored.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Revenue Department Launches Public Consultation on Draft Departure Tax Act: Key Proposed Principles and Implications

The Ministry of Finance, through the Revenue Department (the “RD”), the agency responsible for tax administration and collection, is proposing a revised framework for the collection of departure tax (the “Departure Tax”) under the Draft Departure Tax Act, B.E. [●] (the “Draft Act”).

From 30 September to 29 October 2026, the RD is conducting a public consultation (the “Public Consultation”) on 11 key proposed principles of the Draft Act (the “Proposed Principles”). As the Draft Act has not yet been released for public review, the Public Consultation seeks to inform affected persons and stakeholders of the Proposed Principles, their objectives and their potential impact, and to gather feedback for refining the Proposed Principles and preparing the Draft Act.

Background and Objectives

Thailand first introduced the Departure Tax under the Emergency Decree on Departure Tax, B.E. 2526 (1983) (the “Current Regime”), which took effect on 28 December 1983. Its purpose was to curb excessive outflows of foreign currency and safeguard Thailand’s balance of payments.

Under the Current Regime, the Departure Tax is structured as follows:

1. Persons subject to the Departure Tax

  • Thai nationals, including those born in Thailand or abroad and those who later acquired Thai nationality through naturalization.
  • Foreign nationals holding permanent residence in Thailand, as granted under the applicable immigration laws.

2. Departure Tax rates (maximum THB 5,000)

  • Departures by air: THB 1,000 per person per departure.
  • Departures by land or sea: THB 500 per person per departure.

In practice, however, the Departure Tax is currently exempt for all modes of departure. Departures by land or sea were exempted under Ministerial Regulation No. 4, B.E. 2529 (1986), effective 1 May 1986. Departures by air followed under Ministerial Regulation No. 6, B.E. 2534 (1991), effective 1 July 1991. Both exemptions were introduced in response to the economic conditions of the time and remain in force.

Key Principles of the Draft Act Under Public Consultation

To strengthen fiscal flexibility in responding to future emergencies, the Ministry of Finance has tasked the RD with reviewing the Departure Tax framework. The principal proposed change is to extend the Departure Tax to all persons departing Thailand, regardless of nationality, rather than limiting it to Thai nationals and foreign permanent residents as under the Current Regime.

The 11 Proposed Principles are summarized below:

  1. Persons subject to the Departure Tax: The Departure Tax would apply to all persons departing Thailand, regardless of nationality. The only exception would be carrier personnel, such as pilots and flight attendants, who travel without paying a fare while performing their duties.
  2. Departure Tax rate: The Draft Act would set a maximum rate of THB 5,000 per person per departure. The applicable rate would be prescribed by Ministerial Regulation.
  3. Exemptions: Categories of exempt persons would be prescribed by Ministerial Regulation.
  4. Initial phase: During the initial phase, the rate would be THB 1,000 per air departure, and no Departure Tax would be imposed on departures by land or sea. The Proposed Principles do not specify how long this phase would last after the Draft Act takes effect.
  5. Collection: The Departure Tax would be payable before departure. Where a ticket is purchased, the international passenger carrier or its ticketing agent would collect the tax together with the passenger fare.
  6. Travel without a ticket or fare: Where no ticket is purchased or issued, or no fare is paid or collected through a carrier or ticketing agent, travelers would pay the Departure Tax in accordance with rules and procedures prescribed by the Director-General of the RD.
  7. Commencement: The Draft Act would take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette.
  8. Non-application to previously purchased tickets: The Draft Act would not apply to tickets purchased before its effective date, even if the passenger departs after that date.
  9. Powers of competent officials: Competent officials would be empowered to assess and collect the Departure Tax, penalties and surcharges; to issue summonses and orders; and to search for or seize accounts, documents and other relevant evidence.
  10. Penalties and surcharges: A penalty of twice the amount of Departure Tax payable or required to be remitted would apply. In addition, a surcharge of 1.5% per month (or part thereof) would accrue on unpaid or unremitted Departure Tax, excluding penalties.
  11. Sanctions for non-compliance: The Draft Act would impose sanctions for tax evasion or attempted evasion involving false statements, false testimony, false evidence or other fraudulent means. Sanctions, including regulatory fines where applicable, would also apply to persons who obstruct or fail to cooperate with competent officials or who breach their statutory obligations.

Next Steps

After the Public Consultation closes, the RD will summarize the feedback received and publish a report on the results. The feedback will be used to refine the Proposed Principles, which will form the basis for preparing the Draft Act and proceeding to the subsequent legislative drafting process.

Key Takeaways

  • The proposed framework would apply to all persons departing Thailand, regardless of nationality, subject to prescribed exemptions.
  • The Draft Act would set an initial tax rate of THB 1,000 for air departures and no tax on land or sea departures. The duration of this initial phase has not been specified. The maximum tax rate will be in the amount of THB 5,000.
  • The Proposed Principles remain subject to the Public Consultation and may be revised in light of the feedback received before the Draft Act is finalized.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Criteria and Conditions for Allowing Foreign Nationals to Use Automated Passport Control Channels

Background

The Immigration Bureau introduced Automated Passport Control Channels under the Order No. 322/2566 (the “Previous Order”), effective 15 December 2023, to support tourism and improve immigration processing efficiency.

However, the original framework was relatively narrow in scope, covering only a limited group of foreign nationals and restricting outbound automated processing to Suvarnabhumi Airport. To enhance accessibility and accommodate a wider range of travelers, the Immigration Bureau subsequently issued the Order No. 196/2569 (the “Current Order”), which substantially expands the scope of the Automated Passport Control System.

Immigration Bureau Order No. 196/2569

To further facilitate immigration clearance for foreign travelers, the Immigration Bureau issued the Current Order, effective on 24 August 2026. The Current Order significantly expands access to Automated Passport Control Channels by broadening eligible nationalities, visa categories, and airport checkpoints. Here is what has been changed compared to the previous order.

  1. Expanded Eligible Nationalities

The most significant change is the expansion of eligible nationalities from only Singapore and Hong Kong under the Previous Order to 33 countries and territories under the Current Order.

The expanded list now includes major business and tourism markets such as the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, Austria, Canada, and Singapore.

As a result, a substantially larger number of foreign travelers are now eligible to use Automated Passport Control Channels when entering and departing Thailand.

  • Expanded Visa Eligibility

The Previous Order primarily limited access to permanent residents, diplomats, government representatives, and certain designated individuals.

Under the Current Order, eligibility has been extended to holders of specified Non-Immigrant Visas as listed in its Appendix, covering a wider range of foreign nationals residing, working, studying, investing, or living with family members in Thailand.

  • Expanded Airport Access

Under the Previous Order:

  • Inbound automated channels were available only to a limited group of foreign nationals and specific type of passport holders.
  • Outbound automated channels were available only at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Under the Current Order:

  • Eligible foreign nationals as listed in its Appendix can use automated channels for both inbound and outbound travel.
  • Access is available at any international airport equipped with the Automated Passport Control System.
  • Operational Improvements

The Current Order also introduces procedures enabling immigration officers to promptly correct minor system errors, including issues related to visa classification, period-of-stay records, and automated overstay alerts, thereby helping to reduce delays and unnecessary processing.

  • Broader Coverage of Eligible Travelers

The Current Order also broadens eligibility to include:

  • Business: employees, executives, assignees, and investors;
  • Education: teachers, researchers, and students;
  • Family: spouses, parents, children, and other qualifying family members of Thai nationals, permanent residents, and eligible foreign residents.  

It is crucial to note that each criterion is evaluated independently. Therefore, if a foreigner fits into one of the eligible groups (such as holding a qualifying visa or belonging to an eligible nationality), they will be allowed to use the automated channels

Practical Examples

  1. Long-Term Business Professionals and Expatriates Holding Non-Immigrant “B” Visas

Under the Previous Order:

  • Inbound: No access to the Automated Passport Control System was allowed; even senior executives of multinational companies and citizens of major economies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and China. They  were required to use manual immigration counters.
  • Outbound: The Automated Passport Control System is available only at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Under the Current Order:

  • Inbound and Outbound: It is accessible at any international airport equipped with the Automated Passport Control Channels, provided the traveler qualifies under the Appendix of the Current Order and holds a valid re-entry permit where required.
  • Short-Term Business Travelers and Tourists

Under the Previous Order:

  • Inbound: No access to the Automated Passport Control System was allowed, except for Singaporean and Hong Kong passport holders.
  • Outbound: The Automated Passport Control System is available only at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

Under the Current Order:

  • Inbound and Outbound: Eligible travelers from countries listed in the Appendix to the Current Order, including the United States, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom, can use Automated Passport Control Channels at any international airport equipped with the Automated Passport Control System.

Key Takeaways

  • Significant Expansion: Eligibility has increased from only two nationalities to 33 countries and territories under the Current Order.
  • Broader Access: Business travelers, expatriates, investors, academics, students, and family-based visa holders can now benefit from automated immigration processing.
  • Nationwide Availability: Automated outbound processing is no longer limited to Suvarnabhumi Airport, and it is now being used at any international airport equipped with the system.
  • Improved Efficiency: Immigration officers are now authorized to resolve minor system errors immediately, helping to reduce delays and unnecessary procedures.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Revises Visa Exemption Scheme: 30-Day Stay and Revised List of Eligible Countries

1. Introduction

The Ministry of Interior has issued notification revising Thailand’s visa exemption arrangements for foreign nationals. The revised measures repeal the special 60-day visa exemption scheme introduced in July 2024 and establish an updated list of countries and territories whose passport or travel-document holders may enter the Kingdom without a visa for tourism purposes, for a period not exceeding 30 days.

The notifications were signed on 26 August 2026 and published in the Royal Gazette on 31 August 2026, and will take effect on 15 September 2026, being 15 days after publication.

2. Background: The Previous 60-Day Visa Exemption Scheme

Under the Ministry of Interior notification dated 15 July 2024, nationals of 93 countries and territories entering Thailand for tourism, work, or short-term business purposes were exempt from visa requirements and permitted to stay for up to 60 days.

3. The Revised 30-Day Visa Exemption Scheme

3.1 Scope

  • The revised notification sets out an updated list of countries and territories eligible for visa-free entry for tourism purposes with the permitted period of stay reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
  • The revised scheme covers 60 countries and territories in total: 59 retained from the previous list, plus the Kyrgyz Republic, which has been newly added.

3.2 Retained Countries and Territories (59)

  • Asia: Bahrain, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Türkiye, and the United Arab Emirates.
  • Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
  • Africa: South Africa.
  • North America: Canada and the United States.
  • Oceania: Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand.

3.3 Amended Countries and Territories Covered by the Revised 15-Day Scheme (2)

  • Africa: Seychelles and Mauritius 

Seychelles is not counted as retained Country and Territory as it never been in the Scheme while the Mauritius was in 30 – Day Scheme.

In addition, the Kyrgyz Republic has been newly added to the revised list as well as Seychelles on the Revised 15 – Day Scheme. 

3.4 Countries and Territories No Longer Covered by the Revised 30-Day Scheme (34)

  • Asia: Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Korea (ROK), Laos, Macao, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
  • Europe: Albania, Andorra, Kosovo, Monaco, Russia, and San Marino.
  • Africa:  Mauritius and Morocco.
  • North, Central America and the Caribbean: Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama,Trinidad and Tobago.
  • South America: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay.
  • Oceania: Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

These countries and territories are no longer covered by the revised 30-day visa exemption scheme. Certain nationals among them are eligible for visa-free entry under separate arrangements.

4. Key Operational Requirements Under the Revised Scheme

4.1 Purpose of Entry

Whereas the previous notification permitted eligible nationals from a broader list of countries to enter Thailand for tourism purposes for up to 60 days, the revised notification limits the privilege to a reduced number of eligible countries and shortens the permitted stay to 30 days.

4.2 Land-Border Entry Limitations

  • Visa-exempt entry through land-border immigration checkpoints for the nationals listed in Item 3.2 is limited to no more than two entries per calendar year, except for nationals of Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, and Singapore, and any other countries as may be further designated by the Ministry of Interior.

5. Effect on Nationals Removed From the Previous Scheme

Once the revised measures take effect, nationals of countries and territories removed from the previous list will no longer be entitled to the former 60-day exemption and also this 30-day exemption. However, some may nonetheless remain eligible for visa-free entry under separate bilateral arrangements. The applicable entry requirements and permitted period of stay therefore depend on the specific legal basis applicable to each foreign national.

  • Required to obtain a visa prior to entry (21 from 34 countries): Albania, Andorra, Colombia, Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kosovo, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Panama, Papua New Guinea, San Marino, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan.
  • Covered under separate bilateral arrangements (11 countries and territories): Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Korea (ROK), Laos, Macao, Mongolia, Russia, Vietnam, and Mauritius continue to be governed by their respective bilateral frameworks. For example, Chinese nationals continue to be eligible for visa-exempt entry under the agreement between Thailand and the People’s Republic of China on mutual visa exemption, allowing a stay of up to 30 days per entry, subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

6. Key Takeaways

  • The permitted period of visa-exempt stay under the general scheme has been reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
  • The number of countries and territories eligible under the general visa exemption has decreased from 93 to 60.
  • Nationals of countries removed from the list will no longer benefit from the former 60-day exemption, however, subject to any separate bilateral or country-specific arrangements.
  • The revised measures take effect on 15 September 2026. Travellers admitted before that date retain the period of stay granted under the rules in force on their date of arrival.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Consumer Protection: Proposed Labeling Rules for Solar Panels, Inverters and Energy-Storage Batteries

The Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has opened a public consultation on three draft notifications of the Committee on Labels covering solar panels, inverters used with solar panels, and batteries for storing energy generated from solar panels. The consultation runs from 13–27 August 2026. Although, the notifications remain in draft form, they are an important development for manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers, installers, and businesses supplying rooftop-solar and energy-storage systems.

The Proposed Labeling Rules:

The three draft notifications would regulate labeling requirements for the principal components of a solar-energy system: solar panels, inverters, and energy-storage batteries. The initiative follows increased regulatory attention to consumer protection in the solar sector, including concerns regarding the quality and safety of solar equipment and installations.

Designation of these products as label-controlled products is significant because labeling under the Consumer Protection Act is more than a product-branding requirement. The regulatory framework is intended to ensure that consumers receive sufficient and accurate information about the products they purchase, including information prescribed by the Committee on Labels. The precise disclosures, language requirements, and presentation requirements will ultimately depend on the final wording of each notification.

For solar products, compliance can be particularly complex because consumers frequently purchase an entire rooftop-solar or solar-plus-storage system rather than individual components. The panels, inverter, and battery may be manufactured by different companies, imported by different entities, and supplied to the consumer through a distributor or installer. As a result, businesses should consider labeling compliance across the entire supply chain rather than treating it solely as a manufacturer’s responsibility.

Key Compliance Issues for Businesses:

Manufacturers and importers should be particularly attentive to the proposals because they generally control product specifications, labels, packaging, and accompanying documentation. Imported equipment may present additional challenges where the original labels and manuals are prepared for international markets. Importers should therefore assess whether Thai-language supplementary labels will be required and whether information on those labels is consistent with the manufacturer’s original product information.

This review should extend beyond literal translation. Product names, model numbers, technical specifications, manufacturer and importer details, instructions, warnings, and other required disclosures should be consistent across the product label, packaging, manuals, technical specifications, warranties, and other customer-facing materials. Inconsistencies between these materials can create both regulatory and consumer-dispute risks.

Distributors, dealers, and installers should also monitor the proposals closely. A rooftop-solar provider may purchase panels, an inverter, and a battery from different suppliers and then offer them to the consumer as a single installed system. Businesses operating this model should consider incorporating label verification into their procurement and installation procedures, including checking that required labels are present, correspond to the correct product model, and are not removed or obscured during installation.

The proposals may therefore have consequences beyond the physical product label. Depending on the final requirements, businesses may need to review packaging, Thai-language disclosures, product specification sheets, user instructions, warranties, quotations, sales proposals, online product descriptions, and information provided by dealers and installers. Not all of these materials will necessarily constitute regulated labels, but consistency between mandatory product information and commercial representations should form part of the compliance review.

Supply-Chain Contracts and Existing Inventory:

Businesses should also review how responsibility for labeling compliance is allocated contractually. Supply, import, distribution, dealer, and installation agreements often contain general obligations to comply with applicable law but may not specifically address responsibility for preparing Thai-language labels, verifying technical information, implementing regulatory changes, or bearing the cost of relabeling noncompliant products.

For importers dealing with overseas manufacturers, this can be commercially important. Changes to factory-applied labels or packaging may require manufacturing lead times and additional costs. Agreements should therefore be reviewed to determine who must implement regulatory changes, who bears the associated costs, and what remedies apply where products supplied into the market do not satisfy mandatory labeling requirements.

Existing inventory will be another important issue when the final notifications are issued. Businesses may already hold substantial stocks of solar panels, inverters, and batteries bearing existing labels, while additional products may be in transit or subject to outstanding purchase orders. Companies should monitor the final rules for their effective dates and any transitional provisions, including whether existing inventory can continue to be sold or whether supplementary labeling will be permitted. Businesses should not assume that existing products will automatically be grandfathered.

Labeling, Product Safety, and Enforcement:

The proposed rules should also be considered alongside broader product-safety regulation. The OCPB has previously highlighted consumer concerns relating to allegedly substandard solar installations and has emphasized the importance of consumers being able to identify relevant product, manufacturer, importer, origin, and standards information.

Labeling compliance and technical compliance should therefore be managed as related but distinct requirements. A product’s compliance with an applicable industrial or technical standard does not necessarily establish compliance with consumer-labeling requirements, while a correctly labeled product may still fail to satisfy separate product-safety requirements.

Noncompliance with labeling requirements can carry criminal consequences under the Consumer Protection Act. The OCPB has stated that a seller of a label-controlled product without the required label, or with an incorrect label where the seller knows or ought to know of the noncompliance, may face imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to THB 100,000, or both. For manufacturers producing goods for sale and persons ordering or importing goods for sale, the potential penalty may increase to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to THB 200,000, or both.

What Businesses Should Do Now:

As the notifications remain in draft form, immediate changes to product labels may be premature. However, businesses can begin preparing by identifying affected product models and collecting their current labels, packaging, manuals, and Thai-language product information. Importers should determine which labeling changes can be made locally and which would require cooperation from overseas manufacturers.

Businesses should also map responsibility throughout their distribution networks, review supply and dealer agreements, and identify existing inventory that could be affected by the new requirements. Once the final notifications are issued, particular attention should be given to the exact product scope, mandatory disclosures, Thai-language requirements, effective dates, and transitional arrangements.

Key Takeaways:

  • The OCPB is consulting on three draft labeling notifications covering solar panels, solar inverters, and batteries used for solar-energy storage.
  • The proposals are relevant to manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers, installers, and integrated rooftop-solar and energy-storage providers.
  • Businesses should review not only physical labels but also packaging, Thai-language product information, technical documentation, sales materials, and downstream dealer practices.
  • Importers should assess whether existing global labels and packaging can satisfy the proposed requirements or whether local supplementary labeling or factory changes may be necessary.
  • Supply-chain agreements should clearly allocate responsibility and costs for labeling compliance and regulatory changes.
  • Businesses holding substantial inventory should monitor effective dates and transitional provisions carefully.
  • Companies can use the consultation period to conduct a preliminary product and labeling audit so they are prepared to implement the final requirements efficiently.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Integrating Cybersecurity, Fraud Response, and PDPA Compliance: Practical Implications of the Proposed Digital Channel Security Framework

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has released a proposed Digital Channel Security framework that would strengthen expectations for authentication, fraud prevention, incident response, and the governance of digital financial services. While the proposal focuses primarily on enhancing the security and resilience of digital channels, financial institutions should not view these requirements in isolation.

In practice, a single cybersecurity incident frequently triggers multiple legal and regulatory obligations simultaneously. For example, an account takeover resulting from a phishing attack may require an institution to activate its cybersecurity incident response procedures, implement fraud mitigation measures, assess whether a personal data breach has occurred under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), evaluate outsourcing or third-party service provider involvement, and make appropriate internal and regulatory notifications.

Although these obligations arise from different legal and regulatory sources, organizations may benefit from managing them through a coordinated incident response framework. This article examines the practical implications of the proposed BOT framework alongside existing obligations under the PDPA and broader operational governance practices.

From cybersecurity to operational resilience:

The proposed framework reflects an increasing regulatory emphasis on operational resilience rather than viewing cybersecurity solely as an information technology function. It places greater focus on preventing, detecting, responding to, and recovering from threats affecting digital financial services while maintaining the continuity and integrity of critical operations.

At the same time, financial institutions should recognize that cybersecurity incidents rarely occur in isolation. A single event may involve operational disruption, attempted fraud, compromise of customer credentials, unauthorized disclosure of personal data, and third-party service providers. As a practical matter, organizations may therefore benefit from adopting governance arrangements capable of addressing these interconnected risks through a unified response process.

Governance beyond information technology:

The proposed framework emphasizes that responsibility for digital channel security extends beyond information security teams.

Boards of directors and senior management are expected to establish appropriate governance, oversee digital risks, allocate adequate resources, monitor security performance, and ensure that significant incidents are escalated appropriately.

From a broader governance perspective, institutions should also consider ensuring that legal, compliance, privacy, operational risk, business continuity, and customer service functions are integrated into incident management processes. This cross-functional approach can help organizations address multiple regulatory obligations efficiently when significant incidents occur.

Fraud prevention as part of digital channel security:

The BOT proposal places significant emphasis on fraud prevention through enhanced digital channel security. Proposed measures include stronger customer authentication, monitoring of suspicious activities, behavioral analysis, device identification, protection against phishing and social engineering attacks, and mechanisms for responding to suspicious transactions.

These expectations primarily seek to reduce fraud risks affecting digital financial services. However, successful fraud attacks frequently have wider legal implications. Unauthorized access to customer accounts may also involve compromised personal data, contractual issues with service providers, customer remediation, and regulatory reporting obligations. Institutions should therefore consider integrating fraud response procedures into broader cybersecurity governance rather than treating fraud management as a separate operational function.

Incident response across multiple regulatory frameworks:

The proposed framework expects institutions to establish formal incident response procedures covering detection, escalation, containment, investigation, recovery, and post-incident review.

In practice, these procedures should also enable organizations to identify other legal and regulatory obligations that may arise from the same incident. Depending on the circumstances, an incident may require parallel consideration of fraud management, operational resilience measures, contractual obligations, outsourcing arrangements, and personal data protection requirements.

Developing coordinated response procedures may help reduce duplication of effort, improve decision-making, and ensure that regulatory obligations are addressed consistently across different functions.

Interaction with the Personal Data Protection Act:

The proposed BOT framework does not replace or modify existing obligations under the PDPA. Rather, the two regimes operate alongside one another.

Where a cybersecurity incident involves unauthorized access to, disclosure of, alteration of, or loss of personal data, organizations should assess their obligations under the PDPA independently of the BOT framework. This may include determining whether a personal data breach has occurred, evaluating notification obligations, preserving relevant evidence, documenting response measures, and implementing appropriate remediation.

Accordingly, organizations may wish to ensure that privacy officers, legal counsel, and cybersecurity teams participate jointly in incident response planning and tabletop exercises so that both operational and data protection considerations are addressed from the outset.

Third-party risk management:

Digital financial services increasingly depend on cloud service providers, payment processors, managed service providers, software vendors, and other external partners.

The proposed framework reinforces expectations regarding oversight of third-party service providers throughout the outsourcing lifecycle. Institutions should conduct appropriate due diligence, establish contractual security requirements, monitor vendor performance, and ensure that incident reporting and business continuity arrangements are clearly defined.

Because cybersecurity incidents involving third parties may also raise fraud and personal data protection issues, organizations should consider aligning vendor management processes with their broader incident response and compliance frameworks.

Documentation and evidence of compliance:

The proposed framework places considerable emphasis on governance, accountability, and demonstrating that appropriate controls are in place.

Organizations should maintain comprehensive records of cybersecurity governance, risk assessments, incident response activities, testing, training, vendor oversight, and business continuity exercises. From a broader compliance perspective, documentation should also support obligations arising under other applicable legal frameworks, including the PDPA and contractual commitments relating to outsourced services.

Maintaining complete records may facilitate regulatory engagement, internal investigations, and post-incident reviews while demonstrating that reasonable organizational and technical measures have been implemented.

Practical considerations:

As organizations prepare for the proposed framework, they may wish to assess not only technical cybersecurity controls but also how different compliance functions interact during a significant incident.

Areas for review may include:

  • governance and board oversight;
  • coordination among cybersecurity, legal, compliance, privacy, and operational teams;
  • fraud detection and response procedures;
  • customer authentication controls;
  • third-party risk management;
  • incident reporting and escalation processes;
  • documentation and recordkeeping; and
  • operational resilience testing and tabletop exercises.

An integrated approach may improve organizational readiness while reducing the risk that separate regulatory obligations are managed through disconnected processes.

Key takeaways:

  • The proposed BOT Digital Channel Security framework primarily addresses digital channel security, fraud prevention, governance, and operational resilience.
  • Existing obligations under the PDPA continue to apply independently where cybersecurity incidents involve personal data.
  • A single cyber incident may simultaneously trigger cybersecurity, fraud management, personal data protection, outsourcing, and operational governance obligations.
  • Although these obligations arise under different legal and regulatory frameworks, organizations may benefit from managing them through an integrated incident response framework.
  • Financial institutions should consider reviewing governance structures, cross-functional coordination, and documentation practices to improve operational resilience and regulatory compliance.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner

Other Articles

on by

Consumer Enforcement Intensifies for EV Businesses as Complaint Cases Rise and Labeling Expectations Increase

Thailand’s consumer protection regulator has signaled a more assertive enforcement approach toward the electric vehicle (EV) sector through two related developments. First, it has indicated its readiness to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of consumers in appropriate EV dispute cases. Second, it has issued new guidance consolidating labeling requirements for automobiles, electric vehicles, and used cars.

Although neither development introduces new legislation, together they demonstrate heightened regulatory scrutiny of the automotive industry and provide valuable insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. Manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers, service centers, and online vehicle marketplaces should treat these developments as an opportunity to reassess their compliance and dispute management frameworks.

Increased Enforcement Risk from EV Consumer Complaints:

The Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has reported a significant number of consumer complaints relating to electric vehicles, with a substantial portion already progressing through legal procedures. The agency has confirmed that it has begun issuing formal demand letters in cases supported by sufficient documentation and has reiterated its statutory authority to commence legal proceedings on behalf of consumers where the legal requirements are satisfied.

This represents an important enforcement signal. Rather than merely facilitating mediation between consumers and businesses, the regulator has indicated its willingness to escalate suitable cases into formal litigation.

The risk is particularly significant where multiple complaints arise from the same product model, manufacturing issue, software defect, battery performance concern, warranty practice, or recurring after-sales service problem. A pattern of similar complaints may increase regulatory attention and expose businesses to coordinated enforcement actions, representative litigation, or broader product liability claims.

Businesses operating within the EV supply chain should therefore review whether existing complaint-handling mechanisms are capable of identifying systemic issues before they evolve into regulatory investigations or court proceedings.

Strengthened Expectations for Vehicle Label Compliance:

Separately, the OCPB has published an electronic handbook consolidating labeling requirements applicable to automobiles, electric vehicles, and used vehicles.

The publication emphasizes information that consumers commonly rely upon when making purchasing decisions, including battery specifications, driving range, testing standards, pricing information, warranty coverage, and the disclosure of material vehicle history for used vehicles.

Although the handbook itself is not legally binding, it provides a clear indication of the regulator’s compliance expectations. It reinforces that automobiles and electric vehicles remain controlled labeling products under consumer protection law and that incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information may expose businesses to regulatory enforcement.

The guidance also illustrates that compliance extends beyond physical labels. Regulators are increasingly likely to examine whether information presented across all customer-facing channels remains accurate and consistent.

Businesses should therefore review:

  • labels displayed at dealerships and points of sale;
  • information published on corporate websites and online marketplaces;
  • brochures and sales presentations used by sales personnel;
  • representations concerning driving range and the testing methodology used, such as WLTP or NEDC;
  • battery capacity, expected degradation, warranty scope, and warranty exclusions;
  • disclosures relating to collision history, flood damage, major repairs, and battery replacement for used vehicles; and
  • consistency between information published by manufacturers, importers, dealers, and affiliated sales channels.

Claims relating to vehicle performance, battery longevity, operating costs, sustainability, resale value, or environmental benefits should be supported by appropriate technical evidence and internal documentation before publication.

Litigation Readiness and Document Preservation:

These developments also highlight the importance of litigation preparedness.

Businesses should consider establishing a centralized process for collecting and analyzing customer complaints to determine whether recurring issues indicate broader product or service risks.

At the same time, organizations should preserve relevant evidence, including:

  • sales documentation;
  • warranty records;
  • repair histories;
  • technical diagnostic reports;
  • replacement part records;
  • communications with customers;
  • call center recordings;
  • email correspondence;
  • mobile application records; and
  • connected vehicle diagnostic data.

Where disputes may reasonably be anticipated, organizations should consider implementing litigation hold procedures to reduce the risk of inadvertent deletion of potentially relevant evidence.

Companies should also review contractual risk allocation among overseas manufacturers, importers, dealers, distributors, and service centers, including indemnity provisions and responsibilities for handling product defects, recalls, warranty claims, and consumer litigation.

Data Protection Considerations:

Responding to consumer complaints frequently requires the collection and sharing of customer information, vehicle service histories, location information, and connected vehicle diagnostic data. Much of this information may constitute personal data under the Personal Data Protection Act.

Organizations should ensure that internal investigations and litigation response procedures incorporate appropriate data governance measures, including clearly defined access controls, documented processing purposes, retention periods, and secure mechanisms for sharing information with external counsel, technical experts, and other authorized parties.

Integrating consumer protection compliance with data governance can reduce both regulatory and litigation risks while supporting more effective dispute management.

Key Takeaways:

  • Organizations should strengthen complaint management, evidence preservation, document retention, contractual risk allocation, and data governance processes to prepare for increased regulatory scrutiny and potential consumer litigation.
  • The OCPB’s indication that it is prepared to commence litigation on behalf of consumers represents a significant escalation in consumer protection enforcement affecting the EV industry.
  • Businesses should not view repeated consumer complaints as isolated customer service matters but as potential regulatory and litigation risks requiring centralized oversight.
  • The newly published vehicle labeling handbook, although not legally binding, demonstrates higher regulatory expectations regarding the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of vehicle-related information across all sales channels.
  • Automotive businesses should review advertising claims, warranty disclosures, battery-related representations, and used vehicle disclosures to ensure they are fully substantiated.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles