On 16 June 2026 the Thai Cabinet approved the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act B.E. 2569 (2026) (often called the “Lemon Law”) and submitted the bill to Parliament for consideration. If enacted, the legislation would constitute a major change in Thailand’s consumer-protection framework. It aims to make it easier for purchasers of high‑value or technically complex goods—including automobiles, motorcycles, electronic devices and other equipment that may be difficult or costly to repair—to obtain remedies for defects. Unlike the existing regime, which requires the buyer to prove that a defect existed at the time of sale, the draft law reverses the burden of proof. Where goods break down or malfunction within the statutory window, the goods are presumed to have been defective on delivery and it is up to the seller to prove otherwise.
Because the legislation is still a draft bill, its contents may change during the parliamentary process. This article summarizes the key provisions as currently proposed, explains how the draft would affect sellers and buyers, and provides preliminary guidance on compliance.
Background and Objectives
Under current Thai law, a consumer who wishes to claim a defect typically relies on section 472 of the Civil and Commercial Code, which requires the buyer to prove that the defect existed at the time of sale. In practice, this evidentiary burden is difficult to discharge—particularly when a defect is latent, intermittent or requires technical assessment. The draft Defective Goods Act seeks to align Thailand with international practices by shifting the evidentiary burden to sellers for a defined period after delivery.
The bill was developed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board and is part of the government’s broader effort to strengthen consumer rights and raise product-quality standards. By providing a statutory presumption of defect and clear remedies, the draft aims to improve after‑sales support, reduce litigation costs and increase confidence in high‑value purchases.
Key Provisions of the Draft Act
1. Reversed burden of proof
If goods break down or malfunction within the applicable statutory period, the defect is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. Sellers must prove that the defect did not arise from a matter within their responsibility. This reverses the traditional approach, in which buyers bear the burden of proof.
2. Statutory presumption periods
The presumption is not indefinite. The draft sets two presumption windows counted from the date of delivery:
✓ General goods: A defect discovered within six months of delivery is presumed to have existed from the start.
✓ Motor vehicles: The presumption extends to one year for automobiles and other motor vehicles.
These windows apply not only to consumer sales but also to business‑to‑business transactions and hire‑purchase or finance agreements.
3. Consumer remedies
The draft Act offers a structured menu of remedies, moving beyond repair as the sole recourse. Depending on the nature and severity of the defect, a buyer may demand one of four outcomes:
| Remedy | When it applies |
|---|---|
| Repair | Defects that can be corrected to restore normal use. |
| Replacement | Serious or recurring defects, or when repair fails. For vehicles, a safety‑related defect that cannot be repaired to restore normal operation entitles the buyer to a replacement or termination. |
| Price reduction | Defects that reduce value but still allow continued use. |
| Contract termination | Severe defects, including irreparable safety faults. |
4. Repair deadlines
The draft law introduces strict timelines for repairs, ending the open‑ended cycle of repeated repairs without resolution. Sellers must complete repairs within 60 days for general goods and motorcycles, and 90 days for motor vehicles. If repairs are not completed within the deadline, the consumer may seek a price reduction, terminate the contract or claim damages.
5. Replacement rights for material defects
For material defects, consumers may demand a replacement within seven days for general goods and 14 days for electronic devices. Automobiles that are unsafe or cannot be repaired must be replaced immediately.
6. Exclusions
The draft Act reportedly excludes certain categories of transactions. It does not apply to the sale of second‑hand goods, live animals or peer‑to‑peer consumer sales, where different legal provisions continue to govern.
Practical Implications for Businesses
If enacted, the Lemon Law would impose significant compliance obligations on sellers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers operating in Thailand:
1. Documentation and recordkeeping. Sellers should maintain detailed inspection logs, serial number records and handover documentation to rebut the presumption that a defect existed at delivery. Accurate recordkeeping will be essential to prove that a defect was not present when the goods were handed over.
2. Warranty and policy alignment. Contractual warranty terms should be revised to align with the statutory remedies and repair deadlines. Standard terms that previously required consumers to prove defects may need to be rewritten.
3. Service capacity and repairs. After‑sales service networks must be ready to meet the 60‑day and 90‑day repair deadlines. Ensuring parts availability and repair capacity will be crucial to avoid triggering consumers’ rights to refunds or replacements.
4. Supply‑chain contracts. Because the draft Act applies to business‑to‑business sales and financing arrangements, distributors and dealers should revisit supply contracts to allocate defect-related risk and indemnity obligations with upstream manufacturers.
5. Financial provisioning. Companies should budget for the possibility of replacements, refunds or price reductions, particularly in the automotive and high‑value goods sectors.
6. Online sales and consumer communications. Sellers should ensure that online sales policies and customer‑facing documentation reflect the new statutory rights and remedies.
Observations and Comparisons
The draft Defective Goods Act represents a step toward international best practices. Lemon laws in jurisdictions such as the United States and European Union similarly reverse the burden of proof and provide clear remedies. Thailand’s proposal is comparable but tailored to domestic circumstances:
✓ The draft does not provide indefinite warranties; presumption periods are limited to six months for goods and one year for vehicles.
✓ The remedies focus on restoring the consumer to the position they expected, rather than punitive damages.
✓ Unlike product liability laws, which compensate for injury or damage caused by unsafe products, the draft targets goods that fail to meet contractual expectations.
Remaining Steps and Timing
As of this writing, the draft Act has not yet been enacted. It must still pass Parliament and could be amended during legislative debate. The effective date will be confirmed once the Act is promulgated in the Royal Gazette. Businesses should monitor legislative developments and be prepared to implement compliant warranties and after‑sales processes once the law comes into force.
Key Takeaways
The draft Liability for Defective Goods Act marks a significant shift in Thai consumer law. By reversing the burden of proof, setting statutory presumption periods and providing explicit remedies and repair deadlines, the law aims to make it easier for consumers to obtain relief for defective goods and to encourage sellers to improve quality control and after‑sales service. Sellers, manufacturers and distributors should begin reviewing their warranty policies, service capacity and supply contracts now. Although the bill is not yet law, early preparation can mitigate risk and demonstrate a commitment to consumer protection.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please consult qualified legal counsel.