LEGAL PROBLEMS AND OBSTACLES CONCERNING FINES PENALTY OF ADVERTISING MEDIA OFFENDERS

Abstract

            The research aimed to enhance legal provisions concerning the imposition of penalties and fines on offenders in advertising, under the Consumer Protection Act, B.E. 2522 (1979), the Land Allocation Act, B.E. 2543 (2000), and the Liability for Damages Caused by Unsafe Products Act, B.E. 2551 (2008). Advertising entities were pivotal as key influencers in consumer purchasing decisions, necessitating a study of the merits and drawbacks of advertised products. Employing document research methods, data from various sources were collected and analyzed, including comparative analyses of relevant foreign laws and judicial precedents. Real societal cases are examined to maximize the study's effectiveness and relevance in the context of Thai society.
            It was revealed that penalties prescribed for advertisers under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522, amounting to half of the stipulated penalty, and Section 62, allowing for fines to be commuted, are disproportionate to the offenses committed. This inadequacy diminished the deterrent effect of legal penalties and renders advertised entities less apprehensive about potential repercussions. Additionally, imposed fines failed to align proportionally with accrued profits, posing further challenges.
            From the study, it is recommended that the Land Allocation Act, B.E. 2543 (2000) and the Liability for Damages Caused by Unsafe Products Act, B.E. 2551 (2008) distinctly define liabilities. This specialized approach is deemed more appropriate than relying on the broad Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522, which primarily safeguards consumers across all product categories. This differentiation acknowledges the specific obligations and financial burdens borne by land allocators and advertisers, respectively, thereby fostering a more equitable legal framework.