file photo

 

Thailand’s Supreme Court has ruled decisively that banks, not customers, have the responsibility to prove who authorised disputed credit card transactions. This ruling sets a robust legal precedent aimed at enhancing consumer protection amidst increasing cyber scams. By placing the burden on banks, the decision represents a major step towards empowering consumers against unauthorised credit card charges.

 

The landmark decision, Supreme Court ruling No. 2624/2568, originated from a case where a bank pursued a customer over disputed charges made without the cardholder’s consent. The customer insisted their card had been compromised, while the bank contended liability lay with the cardholder, adhering to typical credit card agreements holding users responsible for all transactions. However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating it was the bank's obligation to verify who authorised the disputed charges because it manages and profits from credit card systems.

 

The court emphasised that mere transaction records are inadequate for assuming customer authorisation. Without additional proof such as verified identity checks or evidence of gross negligence, banks cannot transfer the financial consequences of cybercrime to customers. Consequently, the court dismissed the case, absolving the customer of any repayment duty.

 

Consumer protection experts have heralded this decision as vital in reinforcing public safeguards during an era of burgeoning cybercrime. They believe that this ruling will compel financial institutions to fortify their authentication processes and improve data security measures, shifting away from burdening consumers with potential cyber risks.

 

In a related scenario, a Thai man was defrauded of nearly 70,000 Thai baht from his credit card after scammers used a counterfeit ID and accessed his mobile number. The victim never lost his ID or credit card, yet he could not comprehend how his information was compromised, highlighting the necessity for stringent protective measures, reported The Thaiger.

 

Key Takeaways

• Thai Supreme Court rules banks must prove transaction authorisation.
• Decision enhances consumer protection against credit card fraud.
• Experts urge banks to strengthen security and authentication processes.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Thaiger 2025-12-19

 

 

 

This is essentially good news but it does meanthe banks are going to place even greater burdens of payment authentication checks on customers. 

In the usa, credit cards in general are pretty good about fraudulent  charges.  I've experienced several over the years.  Usually it's obvious and they are multiple charges from different locations.  They either get blocked or I get a text message.  Usually get a new card issued, account transferred quickly and smoothly. 

At last, good news

12 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

In the usa, credit cards in general are pretty good about fraudulent  charges.  I've experienced several over the years.  Usually it's obvious and they are multiple charges from different locations.  They either get blocked or I get a text message.  Usually get a new card issued, account transferred quickly and smoothly. 

Same experience.

Plus the Credit Cards have insurance. 

Must be a mistake, the banks will have have the responsibility to prove who authorised disputed credit card transactions?

as until now, the customer is always at fault and the onus to prove anything was on the customer shoulders. 

17 hours ago, JoePai said:

At last, good news

 

Maybe.  But I can count on one hand the number of foreigners I know who have Thai bank credit cards.  The vast majority have Thai bank debit cards, and their credit cards are from "back home".

 

Does this ruling protect disputed debit card transactions?  I'm not claiming that it doesn't.  But it's not clear from the OP.

18 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

In the usa, credit cards in general are pretty good about fraudulent  charges.  I've experienced several over the years.  Usually it's obvious and they are multiple charges from different locations.  They either get blocked or I get a text message.  Usually get a new card issued, account transferred quickly and smoothly. 

 

This is an advantage credit cards have over Bitcoin.

Please excuse my French, but about F&%$@ing time !!

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Does this ruling protect disputed debit card transactions?  I'm not claiming that it doesn't.  But it's not clear from the OP.

Good point.  What about the debit cards?  My credit cards are USA and I get notices from time to time on questionable charges.  The debit cards are Thai banks.  And mobile banking. Will they have same protection as the Thai credit cards?

43 minutes ago, LivingNThailand said:

Good point.  What about the debit cards?  My credit cards are USA and I get notices from time to time on questionable charges.  The debit cards are Thai banks.  And mobile banking. Will they have same protection as the Thai credit cards?

AFAIK  the problem with debit cards is the charges cannot be reversed like credit cards.  Once the money is gone it's gone.

20 hours ago, gk10012001 said:

In the usa, credit cards in general are pretty good about fraudulent  charges.  I've experienced several over the years.  Usually it's obvious and they are multiple charges from different locations.  They either get blocked or I get a text message.  Usually get a new card issued, account transferred quickly and smoothly. 

Yes, one of the reasons I have kept my US issued credit cards. Ha! Ihad a false charge made at a McDonald's in, I think, NJ. I get immediate notice of any charge so I sent notice reminding them I am in Thailand. No issue ... bank rescinded charge immediately. The other reason, Thai banks will issue a secured debit card but they do not have a credit card as used in the US where, based on my credit history, I can charge thousands of USD, unsecured but by my good name/credit history. 

20 hours ago, Gaccha said:

This is essentially good news but it does meanthe banks are going to place even greater burdens of payment authentication checks on customers. 

i share the concern of the above poster. it all depends now on the methods implemented by banks like all transactions need fingerprint or face scan or or or...i hope not but the potential of more restrictive and controlling measures is there.

21 hours ago, webfact said:

However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating it was the bank's obligation to verify who authorised the disputed charges because it manages and profits from credit card systems.

About time banks took more responsibility

I was under the impression that Visa and Mastercard were responsible not the banks obligation, it doesn’t cost the banks anything.

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

Must be a mistake, the banks will have have the responsibility to prove who authorised disputed credit card transactions?

as until now, the customer is always at fault and the onus to prove anything was on the customer shoulders. 

My experience in Thailand differs. I once had a bunch of small charges suddenly appear on my credit card from overseas locations totaling about 8k baht in all.

 

After contacting the bank, I said  to the call centre help desk that I wanted a refund and I got it two weeks later.

 

My understanding is that Visa and Mastercard insist that member banks refund customers as part of the banks agreements with those companies. The concept being that visa and Mastercard don’t wish the acceptability of cards to be undermined by fear of fraud.

 

Thats just my personal experience, others may have had the opposite. 

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

AFAIK  the problem with debit cards is the charges cannot be reversed like credit cards.  Once the money is gone it's gone.

 

No mention of debit cards in the OP. In my opinion, debit cards are dangerous, once funds are debited from your account, it can take a very long time, if ever, to get the money refunded. All that time you have no access to your money. Credit cards on the other hand, at least in the UK, get the account blocked, fraudulent charges cancelled and new card issued immediately. 

 

Even if the ruling doesn’t apply to Debit cards, surely a good lawyer could persuade a court debit Card holders are owed the same duty of care as Credit Card holders. It should set a precedent.

4 minutes ago, BexMan said:

Even if the ruling doesn’t apply to Debit cards, surely a good lawyer could persuade a court debit Card holders are owed the same duty of care as Credit Card holders. It should set a precedent.

If a Mastercard or Visa Debit card they cover the costs but all the same as a credit card would do.

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Maybe.  But I can count on one hand the number of foreigners I know who have Thai bank credit cards.  The vast majority have Thai bank debit cards, and their credit cards are from "back home".

 

Does this ruling protect disputed debit card transactions?  I'm not claiming that it doesn't.  But it's not clear from the OP.

No

3 hours ago, davb said:

 

This is an advantage credit cards have over Bitcoin.

I can't even imagine how unauthorized or fraudulent bitcoin uses would be handled..

 My bank knows where I am . I once was informed that my card had been used in New York , they cancelled immediately and I didn’t loose a penny. 
The avantages of having a good bank are huge, This new rule is good for Thai users. I’ve never found them very competent. Very narrow minded. 

22 hours ago, JoePai said:

At last, good news

Except the banks will use this as an excuse to raise charges, rates & interest everywhere.

1 hour ago, BexMan said:

Even if the ruling doesn’t apply to Debit cards, surely a good lawyer could persuade a court debit Card holders are owed the same duty of care as Credit Card holders. It should set a precedent.

Less than 2 weeks ago, I noticed on my phone that a transaction of about THB1,500:- was made with my Visa K-bank debit card.  It wasn’t me, I was having a nice massage.  Called the bank, they immediately refunded the money, disabled the card so I had to reapply and get a new card at the bank.  I could see that the purchase was from a stationary shop in the US that does not even deal with overseas internet shopping!  It’s not the first time it’s happened, before with an overseas credit card.  
it’s highly annoying, I wonder how this can happen.  ChatGPT has many explanations of this.  I always believe I’m being cautious, but evidently not enough.

33 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Except the banks will use this as an excuse to raise charges, rates & interest everywhere.

Visa and Mastercard are separate entities from banks, any disputes are dealt with by them not the bank who issues the card.

Finally, as per the rest of the world does !!

On 12/20/2025 at 2:46 PM, geisha said:

 My bank knows where I am . I once was informed that my card had been used in New York , they cancelled immediately and I didn’t loose a penny. 
The avantages of having a good bank are huge, This new rule is good for Thai users. I’ve never found them very competent. Very narrow minded. 

With Singapore banks it’s necessary to change a setting on the card to allow overseas use. Quite useful as a card can be set to domestic use only and then overseas use authorised if travelling overseas.