THAILAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Pisut Attakamol, Wasin Lertwalaipong, Pumma Doungrutana and Kosit Prasitveroj, Baker McKenzie
ties, examining witnesses, adjusting damage claims, reserving the right to amend judgments, and award - ing punitive damages. The CCPA also waives court fees for consumers and allows oral complaints. The SC held that, by default, the CCPA applies to B2C cases and significantly enhances consumer access to justice. Turning to arbitration, the SC acknowledged that while arbitration is a form of ADR, its enforceability depends on the consumer’s full and informed consent. This includes a genuine opportunity to negotiate the arbitration clause and to understand how arbitration differs from court proceedings. Under the TAI Rules, for example, a claimant must file a written statement of claim (SOC), nominate an arbitrator, and bear cer - tain costs, requirements that may impose a burden on consumers and deprive them of the procedural benefits available under the CCPA. In this case, the sale contract was governed by the Condominium Act BE 2522 (1979), which prescribes a standard form. The SC found that the arbitration clause deviated from this form and imposed an addi - tional burden on the consumer, Mr A. Based on these findings, the SC concluded that the arbitration clause constituted an unfair contract term under the UCTA and was therefore unenforceable under Section 14 paragraph 1 of the AA. Mr A was entitled to proceed in court without being compelled to arbitrate. Accordingly, the SC dismissed Company B’s motion. As of July 2025, no further decisions on this issue have been reported in publicly available sources. Therefore, Decision No 4183/2565 (2022) and Deci - sion No 4184/2565 (2022) currently represent the most recent judicial stance in Thailand on the enforceability of arbitration clauses in B2C contracts, a stance that is generally unfavourable to arbitration.
Implications The precedent set by SC Decision No 4183/2565 (2022) and Decision No 4184/2565 (2022) leaves sev - eral questions unresolved. One key issue is the SC’s apparent emphasis on whether a consumer had full opportunity to negotiate the arbitration agreement. This raises the question: if a B2C arbitration clause allows the consumer to choose between court litiga - tion and arbitration at the time of accepting the terms of use, would that constitute sufficient opportunity to negotiate? Alternatively, given the SC’s view that arbi - tration imposes greater burdens than court litigation under the CCPA, would an arbitration clause that mir - rors certain CCPA protections be more likely to with - stand scrutiny? These questions remain unanswered. Another open question is whether a business opera - tor can rely on a foreign law that favours arbitration in B2C contracts, and whether Thai courts would apply that law. Based on the SC’s reasoning, there is a strong possibility that Thai courts would apply Thai law, such as the UCTA and CCPA, regardless of the chosen law, on the basis that consumer protection constitutes a matter of public policy and mandatory application in Thailand. At this stage, business operators should carefully assess the risks of including arbitration clauses in B2C contracts. If arbitration is pursued, the clause must be crafted to strike a balance between business needs and legal risk. This is not a straightforward task and may require ongoing review of legal developments in light of the specific nature of each business.
845 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook