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

March 2, 2020

The Development of Trade Competition Legislation in Thailand

Informed Counsel

The competition law regime in Thailand has recently undergone a number of significant changes and promising developments, starting with the implementation of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA) on October 5, 2017.

In 2018, the Trade Competition Commission (TCC) passed major guidelines that clarified the criteria for considering fundamental offenses under the TCA (i.e., abuse of dominant position, hardcore cartels, non-hardcore cartels, and unfair trade practices), as well as the merger control regime under the TCA.

More promising still, the TCC proved to be a very active organization in 2019, issuing subordinate legislation and actively pursuing enforcement of the TCA. In August 2019, the TCC carried out its first enforcement in respect to three competition cases that were investigated by the previous commission. Summaries of these three precedent cases are provided below.

Abusing a Dominant Position in the Market

The first case, which occurred between October 2011 and July 2012, involved an energy drink manufacturer that had a dominant position in the energy drink market. The manufacturer was alleged to have prohibited its distributors from selling the products of its competitors. The TCC ruled that the energy drink manufacturer committed an offense by abusing its dominance, in contravention of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2542 (1999)—the legislation that the TCA replaced. The TCC imposed aggregate fines of approximately THB 12 million, consisting of separate THB 6 million fines on both the company and the company’s director.

Unfair Trade Practices: Buyers

A case involving two buyers of agricultural products occurred during the enforcement of the 2017 version of the TCA. The TCC ruled that the buyers had engaged in unfair trade practices by threatening other prospective buyers and prohibiting them from purchasing agricultural products from sellers based in the same area as the offenders. The TCC imposed a THB 25,000 fine on the offenders, initially calculated as 10% of the offenders’ total turnover during the year of the offense (the total turnover was THB 500,000) and further reduced by half due to the offenders’ cooperation and in light of it being their first offense.

Unfair Trade Practices: Retail Business Operator

A retail-related case also occurred under the 1999 act. In 2011, a hypermarket operator launched a promotion by which customers could exchange a competitor’s coupon with its own coupon for double the value. The hypermarket operator was found guilty of engaging in unfair trade practices under section 29 of the 1999 act (now section 57  of the TCA) during January, July, and August of 2011. However, the TCC did not impose a criminal fine on the hypermarket operator, as the 1999 act had already been repealed when the TCC’s decision was made. The TCC also could not impose an administrative fine under section 57 of the current TCA, because this would have been contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity.

Subordinate TCA Legislation Issued in 2019

In 2019, the TCC issued more sector-specific guidelines, which aimed to prevent wholesalers, retailers, and franchisors from engaging in unfair trade practices with their business partners. The most recent of these was a notification that focused specifically on franchise businesses; this is covered in detail in another article in this issue of Informed Counsel.

Some months prior to this was a notification that dealt with determination of unfair trade practices in wholesale and retail businesses. The Notification Regarding the Guidelines for the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices in a Wholesale and Retail Business came into force on July 20, 2019. It sets out the criteria for the consideration of unfair trade practices and provides a list of the types of conduct that wholesalers and retailers (e.g., hypermarkets, department stores, supermarkets, convenience stores, etc.) are prohibited from undertaking in their dealings with manufacturers or distributors (including importers). These types of prohibited conduct can be further classified into eight categories:

  • Unfairly fixing a low purchasing price from the manufacturer or distributor (including forcing the manufacturer or distributor to provide a discount for products already delivered);
  • Unfairly demanding economic benefits from the manufacturer or distributor;
  • Unfairly returning the purchased goods without a justifiable reason;
  • Unfairly setting contractual conditions in the consignment agreement;
  • Unfairly forcing the manufacturer or distributor to purchase goods or services without a justifiable reason;
  • Unfairly assigning duties to the personnel of the manufacturer or distributor without prior agreement or the consent of the manufacturer or distributor;
  • Unfairly refusing to accept products that are specifically ordered or made for the wholesaler or retailer (e.g., private brand, house brand); and
  • Other unfair trade practices that may cause damage to a manufacturer or distributor, such as delaying payment for the purchase of goods, refusal to deal, or delisting of stock.

Going Forward

In 2020, the TCC will focus on releasing more guidelines for specific regulated sectors such as the telecommunications, financial, insurance, and energy sectors. The TCC is also in the process of drafting additional guidelines for the consideration of mergers under the TCA. In terms of enforcement, the TCC has revealed that there are around 40–50 cases relating to offenses under the TCA that remain under investigation. As the TCC continues to actively shape the evolution of competition law in Thailand, it is anticipated that the Thai competition law regime will see more significant developments and positive changes in the years to come.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

November 7, 2025
Thailand and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) titled “Cooperation to Diversify Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains and Promote Investments” on October 26, 2025, signaling a new strategic alignment aimed at developing Thailand’s mineral sector, particularly in rare earth elements (REEs). The MOU has implications for investments in technology, manufacturing, and other related sectors. This update outlines the key provisions of the MOU and the potential opportunities and legal navigating points for businesses. Objectives The primary driver of this agreement is the US initiative to diversify global supply chains for critical minerals and reduce reliance on current market leaders, particularly China. For Thailand, it represents a major opportunity to attract high-tech investment and develop its downstream processing industries. The cooperation is set to focus on five main areas: Technical knowledge: Exchange of technical expertise and international best practices to strengthen Thailand’s mining and processing sector. Joint cooperation: Establishing workshops, seminars, and scientific collaboration to boost innovation. Regulatory practice: Promoting good governance and streamlining regulatory and licensing procedures. Information sharing: Sharing data on potential projects and global market prices. Full-value chain: The MOU covers the entire mineral lifecycle, from exploration and extraction to processing, refining, and recycling. “First Opportunity to Invest” Clause The most debated provision within the MOU states that “participants expect to have the first opportunity to invest . . . in critical minerals assets that may be sold in Thailand.” Business implications: This clause is widely interpreted as granting US companies a first look or preferential access to investment opportunities in Thailand’s critical minerals sector. This could be a significant advantage for US-based or affiliated companies in mining, technology, and energy seeking to secure a foothold in a developing REE supply chain. Thai government position: Thai officials, including the prime minister, have publicly clarified
October 24, 2025
Thailand currently lacks a specific franchise act. Consequently, the legality of any franchise agreement is determined by its compliance with various existing laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Code, the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2530 (1997). Thailand is a freedom-to-contract jurisdiction. This allows for a high degree of flexibility and autonomy in contractual arrangements, provided that the terms do not violate any laws or public policy and do not fall under the scope of unfair contract terms. Given this, the requirement for fairness in franchise agreement terms often leads to uncertainty, but decisions from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) can provide guidance on whether specific contentious terms are in fact fair.  One issue worth examining in this light is the inclusion of terms on nonrefundable franchise fees and strict purchasing conditions. Franchise Fee: Unfair to Refuse Refund? Nonrefundable franchise fees represent a significant upfront investment for franchisees, often becoming a point of contention if the franchise relationship deteriorates or the franchisor ceases operations. Their fairness and enforceability are frequently scrutinized by regulatory bodies like the TCCT, highlighting the critical balance between contractual freedom and franchisee protection. Faced with one such case, the TCCT considered whether it was unfair for the franchisor to refuse to refund the franchise fee after the franchisor ceased operations.  The franchisee had entered into a service agreement on August 2, 2021, and begun operating on October 9, 2021. However, by November 21, 2023, the franchisee was notified that the system would be shut down for maintenance, and by December 26, 2023, the franchisor announced the cessation of operations due to financial losses. The franchisee then requested a refund of the franchise fee. Unfortunately for the franchisee, the TCCT found that the franchisor’s
October 20, 2025
Global trade has become an everyday issue with immense effects on trade and the economy. Today’s global trade climate sees countries around the world engaged in trade negotiations aspiring to eliminate trade barriers. Customs tariffs and associated privileges are among the issues that most impact global trade flows and the import-export sector. Thailand has negotiated customs tariff privileges as part of its 14 free trade agreements (FTAs) with 18 countries, including six bilateral and eight regional agreements. These FTAs set forth criteria for member states to comply with and adopt into national law. To achieve customs privileges, one of the most important criteria is rules of origin, which indicate the originating country of imported or exported goods and the accompanying duty rates or privileges for reduction or exemption. Rules of Origin Under FTAs The rules of origin mapped out in FTAs allow for duty exemptions or rate reductions based on the determination of goods’ country of origin. This largely includes two main categories: Wholly obtained (WO) means the product was entirely produced in a single originating country and does not include any foreign (non-originating) content or manufacturing process. Product specific rules (PSR) are detailed criteria that define how each product’s origin is determined. PSR criteria that are often found in FTAs include “change in tariff classification” (determining origin based on sufficient transformation of materials), “regional value content” (requiring a minimum percentage of value to be added locally), and specific manufacturing or processing operations (mandating particular production steps occur in the originating country). These criteria also extend to cover other subordinated methods of verification, such as accumulation rules and de minimis rules, to provide more flexibility for the establishment of origins and tariff privileges under such FTAs. Compliance Challenges Despite attempts to promote international trade and eliminate trade barriers through
October 17, 2025
The Department of Trade under Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued a schedule of revised service fees for trade-related services, effective October 15, 2025. The revised fees are contained in Newsletter of Export/Import 6/2025, which supersedes the previous rates set out in 2018 and 2020. Service Fees The revised fees include the following: Annual fee for TradeNet 2.0, the MOC online platform for trade submissions: MMK 50,000 (approx. USD 23.81) Online service application fee: MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) Import or export license renewal (including for all imported goods exempt from the license fees): MMK 50,000 (approx. USD 23.81) for initial renewal (two months) MMK 30,000 (approx. USD 14.29) for second renewal (one month) Amendment of license information: MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) per amendment Return of export/import license: MMK 30,000 (approx. USD 14.29) Late fees for renewal/amendment of import or export license: MMK 5,000 (approx. USD 2.38) if within one month of expiry MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) if later than one month after expiry Submission Schedule License renewal applications submitted more than 14 days after the license expiration date will not be processed. Applications for license amendment must be submitted in advance of the relevant goods’ arrival at Myanmar ports or airports. For more information on this announcement, or on any aspect of import and export matters in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].