Applying Motion to Strike to solve SLAPP problems in Consumer protection law

Abstract

Currently, consumers' rights are not adequately protected. Consumers are often restricted in their ability to exercise their rights freely, particularly their right to express opinions about products and services in good faith. Businesses may threaten consumers with defamation lawsuits, accusing them of making statements that harm the business's reputation. Under Section 423 of the Civil and Commercial Code. These types of lawsuits are referred to as “SLAPPs”, an abbreviation form for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." Such lawsuits are designed to create difficulties for defendants who have expressed negative opinions about the plaintiff, thereby burdening them with the challenges of legal proceedings. Moreover, SLAPPs aim to intimidate others, making them fear to express their unfavorable feedback. Such lawsuits are often initiated by parties with unequal economic power, where the plaintiff frequently disregards the potential consequences of the judicial decision. The primary objective is to exploit the legal system to create difficulties for the defendant. In consumer cases, these types of lawsuits are not only constituting an abuse of the legal system but also threaten consumers' rights, which are fundamental and essential. Nevertheless, it is also important to consider the rights of businesses at the same time. It has been found that one optimal solution to combat these lawsuits is the use of a "Motion to Strike," which provides an option for consumers. To apply this motion, several legal frameworks must be considered, including draft legislation, directives from other countries, international law, as well as Thailand's draft legislation. Additionally, the Civil Procedure Code and the Consumer Case Procedure Act, B.E. 2551, must also be considered. Moreover, it is important to consider the difference between the "Motion to Strike" and Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to demonstrate that Section 24 alone is insufficient to resolve the issue. Key considerations regarding the "Motion to Strike" include the time frame for filing the motion with the court, the potential outcomes of filing the motion, the factors to consider when deciding whether to grant the motion, the burden of proof, and the consequences if the court grants or rejects with the motion. Additionally, the author proposes how this motion could be applied within the framework of the Consumer Case Procedure Act, B.E. 2551.