Right to Repair in Thailand: A 2026 Guide for Manufacturers

Right to Repair in Thailand: Where the Law Actually Stands

Let us be precise about status, because the commercial consequences differ enormously. As a matter of black-letter law, the right to repair in Thailand does not yet exist as a standalone entitlement. Thailand has no right-to-repair statute in force. Parliament has not passed one, and no regulator has issued binding repair-access rules for manufacturers.

What exists instead is a policy conversation. Consumer groups and public-policy researchers have urged Thailand to adopt repair-access measures, including obligations to supply spare parts, tools and service manuals, plus restrictions on software locks that reject third-party components. Those proposals remain advocacy positions rather than draft legislation.

Meanwhile, a separate and far more advanced bill will change repair economics regardless. The draft Liability for Defective Goods Act, widely called the Lemon Law, cleared its first reading in the House of Representatives on 24 June 2026 and now sits with a special committee. It is not yet law, but it is close enough that manufacturers should plan around it.

What Section 36 of the Patent Act Covers

Section 36(7) of the Patent Act B.E. 2522 sets out Thailand’s exhaustion principle. Once a patented product has been produced or sold with the patent owner’s authorisation, further use, sale, possession for sale, offering for sale or importation of that product does not infringe the patent. Commentators generally read this as international exhaustion.

For traditional machinery, that rule settles most disputes. A buyer who owns a lawfully sold machine may run it, resell it and maintain it. A patent holder cannot use the patent to police what the owner does with that specific unit afterwards.

Exhaustion covers the hardware, not the ecosystem

Modern equipment complicates the analysis. Exhaustion attaches to the physical article that was sold. It does not automatically hand the buyer a licence to the manufacturer’s diagnostic software, firmware updates, calibration files or dealer portals. Those assets sit under separate copyright, contract and trade-secret regimes.

Consequently, a manufacturer can often restrict repair without ever asserting a patent. It simply withholds the software key. That is precisely why the right to repair in Thailand cannot be analysed through patent law alone.

Repair versus reconstruction remains unsettled

Thai law does not draw a clear statutory line between permissible repair and impermissible reconstruction of a patented product. Replacing a worn bearing plainly falls on the repair side. Rebuilding an entire patented assembly around a salvaged serial plate plainly does not. Between those poles, the position is genuinely uncertain, and Thai case law offers limited guidance.

Therefore, both sides face risk. Manufacturers should avoid overstating patent reach in dealer communications. Independent service providers, importers of refurbished units and parts remanufacturers should obtain an opinion before scaling a programme.

The Software Layer Is Where Repair Restrictions Really Bite

Embedded software attracts copyright protection in Thailand as a literary work. In addition, Thai copyright law protects technological protection measures, so circumventing an access control on firmware can create exposure beyond ordinary infringement. Manufacturers rely heavily on this layer.

Trade-secret law reinforces it. Fault-code libraries, calibration tables, service procedures and diagnostic algorithms can qualify as protectable confidential information when a company takes proper measures to keep them secret. Many international groups underestimate how much of their aftermarket moat depends on that classification. Our guide to trade secret protection in Thailand explains the conditions that must be met.

However, the same architecture creates commercial fragility. If diagnostic access is the only thing keeping customers inside the dealer network, regulators and courts will eventually ask whether that lock serves safety or serves margin. Increasingly, that question drives the right to repair in Thailand and across the region.

Competition Law Shapes the Right to Repair in Thailand

In practice, a Thai challenge to aftermarket restrictions is more likely to arrive as a competition complaint than as a patent case. The Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) prohibits abuse of a dominant position and restricts unfair trade practices, including conduct that unreasonably forecloses competitors or imposes unjustified conditions on trading partners.

Several common aftermarket structures deserve review under that framework:

• Tying service to parts. Conditioning warranty cover on the use of authorised labour, without a safety or quality justification.
• Refusing diagnostic access. Denying independent workshops any route to fault-code reading or component reprogramming.
• Parts pairing. Software that rejects a genuine component unless a dealer authorises it electronically.
• Exclusive dealer obligations. Terms that prevent authorised dealers from supplying parts or manuals to independent providers.
• Discriminatory pricing. Parts or software subscriptions priced so that independent repair becomes uneconomic.

None of these is unlawful by itself. Market position, objective justification and actual effect all matter. Even so, a documented justification file is far cheaper to prepare now than to reconstruct during an investigation.

The Draft Lemon Law Adds Repair Deadlines

The draft Liability for Defective Goods Act deserves close attention from anyone selling durable goods here. The Cabinet approved the bill in June 2026, and the House passed it at first reading on 24 June 2026 by 420 votes to nil. A special committee is now reviewing the text.

As currently drafted, the bill would reverse the burden of proof. A defect appearing within a defined presumption period would be treated as having existed at delivery unless the seller proves otherwise. Reported presumption periods run to six months for general goods and electrical appliances, one year or 10,000 kilometres for cars, and six months or 5,000 kilometres for motorcycles. Reported repair deadlines are 60 days for general goods and motorcycles and 90 days for cars.

Status note: these figures reflect the bill as reported during parliamentary consideration. Second and third readings, Senate review and Royal Gazette publication all remain outstanding, and the committee may change the text. Nothing here is yet binding, and companies should not restructure warranty terms on the assumption that the current draft is final.

Still, the direction is unmistakable. Fixed repair windows push service capacity, parts availability and technician coverage from an operational concern to a legal one. Our analysis of the Thailand Lemon Law and defective goods rules examines the commercial implications in more detail, and the existing Thai product liability regime continues to apply alongside it.

Why the Deere Settlement Matters to Boards in Bangkok

On 8 July 2026 the United States Federal Trade Commission, together with five state attorneys general, announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that the manufacturer had unlawfully restricted the ability of farmers and independent providers to repair their equipment. For ten years, Deere must give farmers and independent repairers the same repair resources, including applicable software capabilities, that it gives authorised dealers.

That outcome carries no direct legal force here. Nevertheless, it matters to the right to repair in Thailand for three practical reasons.

First, multinationals rarely maintain two aftermarket philosophies. A global commitment to parity in repair access tends to migrate into regional dealer agreements within a year or two. Second, the theory of harm was competition law, not patent law, which mirrors the most plausible route to a Thai challenge. Third, Thai regulators and consumer advocates read foreign enforcement outcomes closely, and the Deere case gives them a concrete template.

Boards should therefore ask a simple question. If a Thai regulator asked us to justify each repair restriction on safety, emissions-compliance or data-integrity grounds, could we do it in writing today?

Right to Repair in Thailand: A Practical Checklist

Companies that sell equipment here can take useful steps now, well before any repair statute appears. We recommend the following sequence.

1. Map every restriction. List each control that limits independent repair, then identify its legal basis: patent, copyright, technological protection measure, trade secret or contract.
2. Justify each one. Record the safety, regulatory or data-security rationale. Restrictions with no justification beyond revenue protection carry the highest regulatory risk.
3. Separate safety-critical from routine functions. Consider releasing routine diagnostic access while retaining controls over emissions, braking or dosing parameters.
4. Review dealer and distribution agreements. Check exclusivity, parts-supply and manual-disclosure clauses against the Trade Competition Act.
5. Price aftermarket access defensibly. Ensure subscription and tool pricing can be explained by cost and value rather than by exclusion.
6. Test warranty language. Remove terms that void cover simply because an independent workshop performed the work.
7. Model the Lemon Law scenario. Stress-test parts lead times and workshop capacity against 60-day and 90-day repair windows.
8. Protect what genuinely deserves protection. Confirm that confidentiality measures around diagnostic know-how satisfy Thai trade-secret requirements.

Independent service groups, parts importers and refurbishment businesses should run the mirror-image exercise. Before investing in tooling or bypass capability, confirm where the copyright and trade-secret lines sit. A written opinion costs far less than an injunction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Preparing for What Comes Next

Repair policy has quietly become a governance issue. Aftermarket revenue, warranty exposure, competition risk and brand reputation now sit in the same file. Companies that document their reasoning early will adapt calmly if Thailand legislates. Those that rely on undocumented software locks will face an uncomfortable review.

Foreign investors should also remember that the right to repair in Thailand will be shaped by domestic consumer politics as much as by international practice. Legislative momentum on defective goods shows how quickly consumer measures can move through the Thai Parliament once they attract cross-party support.

This article provides general information on the right to repair in Thailand and does not constitute legal advice. Legislative status described here reflects publicly reported information at the time of writing. Companies should obtain advice on their specific products, contracts and market position.

Further reading from official sources: the Department of Intellectual Property publishes the Patent Act and related guidance, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board handles consumer complaints and the defective-goods initiative, and the US Federal Trade Commission has published the terms of its 2026 repair-access settlement.