On July 31, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) launched a one-month public consultation period on proposed regulatory guidelines for competition in three business segments: (1) digital platforms; (2) modern trade and credit terms; and (3) ride-hailing and on-demand delivery, including food delivery and mart/quick commerce. At the same time, the TCCT released a market report on ride hailing and on-demand delivery that is likely to influence the guidelines and their interpretation and enforcement. The consultation runs until August 31, 2026. Stakeholders have a limited window to submit practical, evidence-based input that may shape the next phase of Thailand’s regulatory framework for competition. Scope of the Consultation The public consultation targets updating existing guidance in three business sectors that have experienced transformative growth and structural change: Digital platforms: The TCCT has actively monitored this sector in recent years and has coordinated with other regulators, primarily the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) and the Ministry of Commerce. In March 2026 the TCCT’s Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses took effect, and in July the TCCT established a digital platform subcommittee to regulate and prevent unfair trade practices in digital platform businesses. This activity followed a TCCT market report on e-marketplace businesses in September 2025. Modern trade and credit terms: This sector was the focus of the TCCT’s 2019 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Wholesale and Retail Operators and Manufacturers or Suppliers (widely known as the “Modern Trade Guidelines”) , as well as its 2021 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices regarding the Credit Terms under which Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Sell Products or Services to a Purchaser (also known as the “Credit Term Guidelines”), which were amended the following year. Ride-hailing and on-demand delivery (including food delivery and quick commerce): The TCCT published the Guidelines on

Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear

Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center

Carbon markets have moved to the forefront of corporate and regulatory agendas as global attention to climate change and sustainability intensifies. Worldwide, many jurisdictions—including Thailand—are finding carbon markets to be promising tools in their efforts to combat climate-warming emissions and accelerate their net-zero pathways and sustainability commitments. According to the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization’s (TGO) 2025 Voluntary Carbon Market Survey, approximately 3.29 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂eq) were traded under Thailand’s domestic standard between 2020 and 2024 with a cumulative market value of approximately THB 314.5 million (approximately USD 9.43 million), and 524 projects had been registered under the Thailand Voluntary Emission Reduction Program (T-VER) framework. Carbon Credits in Thailand Thailand’s carbon credit regime is, at present, entirely voluntary. There is not yet any obligation for businesses to purchase or retire carbon credits, although this may change once the draft Climate Change Act is enacted. The draft Climate Change Act, which is currently undergoing legal review before submission to Parliament, is expected to introduce a mandatory emissions trading system (ETS), under which  legal entities in designated sectors will be allocated emissions allowances and will be required to surrender sufficient allowances to cover their verified emissions, with penalties for shortfalls. Rather than imposing a blanket obligation on all businesses to purchase or retire carbon credits, the draft act is expected to allow ETS-covered entities to use eligible carbon credits (for example, those certified under T-VER) to meet only a limited, capped portion of their compliance obligation, with the applicable cap and eligibility criteria to be set out in subordinate regulations and the relevant allocation plan. The principal domestic framework for carbon credits is the T-VER, administered by the TGO. While some project developers in Thailand also operate under international standards such as Verified Carbon Standard or the Gold