You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 30, 2019

Franchising in Laos

Subscribe to Updates
Franchise Law Insider

This article was first published on Franchising Insider —a blog maintained by US Law Firm Quarles & Brady LLP—and was co-authored by Dino Santaniello, head of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vientiane office, and Robert A. Smith, a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Quarles & Brady LLP.

Introduction

Hidden between some of the most prominent powerhouses in Asia—China, Thailand, and Vietnam—Laos has often been overlooked by foreign investors seeking to capitalize on investment opportunities in the region. However, thanks to an increased commitment from the government to ease restrictions on foreign direct investment (FDI) and efforts to create a more well-rounded economy that is less dependent on natural resources, Laos has witnessed a surge of new franchise operations over the past few years. From food and beverage operators to car rental providers and clothing retailers, these new franchises represent a variety of different industries and help to diversify the Lao economy. To date, some of the most well-known brands present in Laos include Avis, Café Amazon, Mini Big C, Pizza Company, and Texas Chicken (the overseas version of Church’s Chicken).

Regulation

While there are no specific franchising regulations in Laos, there are a number of other pieces of legislation that govern franchises in the country.

The Decision on Wholesale and Retail Businesses 2015 No. 1005/MOIC.ITD, dated May 22, 2015, defines the term “franchise” and stipulates that general wholesale/retail activities can be carried out under this definition. While there are no prohibitions on foreigners who wish to invest in a franchised business, there are specific requirements and restrictions on FDI. For example, the minimum registered capital imposed on foreign investors will depend on the share equity held in the company carrying out the franchised business. Depending on the business activities of the franchise, additional restrictions on the ratio of shares between foreigners and Lao nationals may apply.

Because there is no law on franchising, there are no specific provisions that must be included in franchise agreements in Laos. However, all franchise agreements are governed by the common rules of the Law on Contract and Tort No. 01/NA, dated December 8, 2008 (Contract and Tort Law), and the Law on Notary No. 11/NA, dated November 26, 2009 (the Notary Law). Specifically, the Law on Notary provides that a contract must be certified by the Notary Office of the Ministry of Justice or one of its related departments (for certification purposes, a Lao version of the contract will be requested). This certification is important because it proves that a contract is valid and, thus, enforceable against a third party.

There are no statutory pre-contract disclosure requirements in Laos.

Good Faith

While the Contract and Tort Law provides for a duty of good faith in the performance of contracts, it fails to provide a definition of what “good faith” requires under Lao law. This legislation also remains silent on the duty of good faith during negotiations of franchise agreements. Generally, good faith should be construed as performing a contract without the intention to defraud the other party and acting without malice; however, the study of precedents in Laos remains challenging, making it difficult to assume an interpretation of the term that may be given by the Lao People’s Court.

Intellectual Property

There is no requirement to register a trademark under Lao law; however, brand owners are strongly advised to do so if they have plans to use and distribute products or services bearing the trademark in the Lao market. Laos uses the first-to-file system for trademark registrations, meaning that the first person to file a trademark will own the exclusive rights over that mark. According to the Law on Intellectual Property No. 38/NA, dated November 15, 2017 (the IP Law), registration of a trademark gives the registered owner the ability to act against infringers and to enforce their rights. For instance, a trademark owner in Laos has the right to enlist the assistance of the authorities to conduct seizures of counterfeit or imitation goods, provided that the mark owner has provided certified evidence that the goods are indeed fake.

According to the IP Law, copyrights do not need to be registered in order to be protected; those rights are granted immediately, without registration requirements, when a work is created. However, the owner of the work is advised to issue an official notification to claim copyright ownership, which can be used as strong evidence in the case of a violation or dispute.

Similarly, trade secrets are expressly mentioned under the IP Law, and also do not require registration in order to be protected. Trade secrets will remain protected as long as the information (1) remains confidential; (2) has trade value; and (3) is not easily accessible.

Competition Law

The Law on Business Competition, No. 60/NA, dated July 14, 2015 (the Business Competition Law), sanctions the act of imposing different prices or terms of purchase/sale for the same goods or services. Accordingly, a franchisor cannot treat any of its franchisees differently than others. Similarly, the Business Competition Law prohibits the imposition of terms and conditions through a sale/purchase agreement, and the act of forcing the performance of obligations which are not required by contract. This provision aims to protect franchisees from franchisors who may attempt to abuse their power during negotiations or during the performance of the contract. Finally, the Business Competition Law expressly prohibits price fixing. As such, franchisors are not permitted to impose a price related to their goods/services upon franchisees, except in very particular circumstances.

Non-compete clauses that amount to an absolute or excessive restraint of trade are not permitted. What is usually permissible, however, is a reasonable restraint that is narrow in scope and specific to the circumstances. Despite the absence of case law defining a reasonable scope for a non-compete provision, provisions with a very narrow scope relating to specific circumstances would likely be enforceable. For these reasons, post-contractual non-compete clauses should be drafted carefully, identifying a reasonable and clearly defined scope.

Taxation

Under the Law on Tax No. 70/NA, dated December 15, 2015, a 10 percent withholding tax applies to payments made with respect to dividends and a 5 percent withholding tax applies to intellectual property royalty fees.

Taxation rates may differ from those prescribed in the law (and outlined above), if the recipient of the payment is from a country that has signed a double taxation agreement with Laos. Currently, this applies to Brunei, China, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Dispute Resolution

In Laos, there is no dispute resolution body with specific responsibility for handling franchise disputes. Generally, franchise operators in Laos prefer to remedy disputes by filing complaints with the relevant administrative bodies (determined by the nature of the dispute), instead of filing complaints with the Lao People’s Court. Mediation is often considered a prerequisite to filing a complaint with the Lao People’s Court.

Laos is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Accordingly, foreign arbitral awards are recognized and enforceable in Laos. However, local regulations provide a number of conditions that must be met prior to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. Among other things, these conditions include requirements that the foreign arbitral award does not affect the sovereignty or contradict the laws of Laos, and does not affect the “peace and orderliness” of Lao society.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More