The Consumer Council's legal team reaffirms its stance that the lawsuit against online platforms also covers their parent companies, after all defendants in Thailand and abroad have received full copies of the complaint and court summons ahead of the readiness hearing on 3 Aug 2026 GMT+7.
On 29 Jul 2026 GMT+7, reporters noted that after the Consumer Council filed lawsuits against online platforms, application service providers, and financial institutions—totaling 17 defendants—to demand accountability for numerous consumers victimized by fraud through digital platforms, the case advanced further. The court has now fully served copies of the complaint and summons to the foreign parent companies of the platforms ahead of the readiness hearing scheduled for 3 Aug 2026 GMT+7.
Ms. Nannaphatsorn Techapanyapitak, the lead attorney and the Consumer Council's legal team, stated that the key aspect of this case is that the lawsuit is not confined to legal entities in Thailand but extends to parent companies overseas. These parent companies set policies and control the operations of the platforms worldwide and have direct authority over implementing system security measures.
In the case of Meta, owner of the Facebook platform, the Consumer Council has sued both the parent company in the United States and the company in Ireland. This is because the Irish company contracts for payments from users in Thailand, including for advertising and other services, thus linking it to Thai consumer transactions. Meanwhile, the U.S. parent company sets policies and controls the entire platform system.
For LINE, lawsuits have been filed against both the parent company in Japan and the Thai company for the same reasons: to hold those with actual control over the system accountable for damages to Thai consumers, rather than limiting liability to companies acting only as marketing agents or coordinators in Thailand.
Explanation for the necessity to sue parent companies
The legal team also explained that over the years, many lawsuits against online platforms have faced challenges because Thai companies claimed they only served as marketing representatives without authority to set policies or control platform systems, thus should not be held responsible for resulting damages. This legal action aims for the court to recognize that parent companies, which establish policies and control the systems, must share responsibility if inadequate management allows fraudsters to exploit the platforms and harm Thai consumers.
Another important reason is linking liability to those who directly benefit from Thai consumer transactions. For example, Meta's company in Ireland contracts for payments from users in Thailand, while the parent company sets policies and controls the entire system. The legal team views these as crucial factors the court should consider in determining platform liability.
Goal to establish a new standard
The legal team emphasized that the purpose of this case is not limited to seeking compensation for individual victims but aims to promote a new standard in protecting Thai consumers. This includes requiring global online platforms to enhance system security measures and accept responsibility when damages occur from using their services.
“When platforms derive benefits and revenues from Thai consumers, they should be responsible for maintaining system security and providing appropriate remedies when damages happen, not just profiting without accountability.” Ms. Nannaphatsorn concluded.
