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​ 

October 3, 2025
On September 26, 2025, the Contract Committee under Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board issued a regulation that aims to standardize contracts and enhance consumer protection within the beauty and wellness industry. The Notification on Prescribing the Beauty Service Business as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), which takes effect on January 24, 2026, requires business operators to use a prescribed standard contract in Thai and adhere to strict mandatory provisions and prohibitions. These regulations apply to operators across all in-person and online service channels, including via digital platforms. “Beauty services business” is defined as the provision of services under an agreement allowing consumers to receive a series of treatments, either over a set number of sessions or within a set period. This includes massage, spa, other methods for cleanliness, beauty, or care of facial or body skin, and weight control and body shaping—including services offered electronically. The law excludes surgery, liposuction, and medical treatments performed by licensed practitioners. The notification establishes the following key requirements: Mandatory contract and formatting. All contracts with consumers must use the standard contract form, in Thai, with clear, readable text (minimum font size of 2 millimeters, no more than 11 characters per inch), and include all essential terms from the annexed form. Contract execution. Contracts must be made in duplicate, with one copy given to the consumer at signing. For agreements concluded through electronic channels, the process must comply with the Electronic Transactions Act and use the same required terms. Digital platforms. Business operators who provide services facilitated through a digital platform as an intermediary are ultimately responsible for ensuring the consumer receives a compliant contract. Prohibited clauses. The law prohibits clauses that limit or exclude liability for damages to life, body, health, mind, or property resulting from breach of contract or a wrongful act;
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts
September 2, 2025
Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has initiated a sweeping regulatory review of licensed direct sale and direct marketing businesses in Thailand and is in the process of notifying business operators to submit their annual business report and financial statement to the OCPB as part of their postlicensing obligations. This move marks a significant escalation in the government’s efforts to enforce compliance and transparency in the sector, which has faced growing scrutiny in recent years. Key Regulatory Considerations All businesses holding a direct sales or direct marketing license are required to submit their audited financial statement along with their business operation report to the OCPB within 60 days from the end of their fiscal year (extendable for up to 30 days by request, if necessary). The OCPB is currently conducting license audits as part of its enforcement duties. The office aims to complete audits for at least 90% of the 2,983 registered businesses that have obtained their license since 2022. This includes a review of the business conduct of the license holder. New license applications are also under scrutiny. Applicants are currently being subjected to background checks, and the OCPB has signaled a more rigorous vetting process moving forward. Impact of Noncompliance Failure to comply with these reporting obligations may result in escalating enforcement actions, including: Official notice to rectify noncompliance within a specified timeframe. Revocation of business registration, if the operator fails to respond. Revocation of business registration could result in a five-year prohibition on reapplying for a direct sales or direct marketing license following the revocation. The OCPB has already initiated outreach efforts, including SMS and email notifications, and has hosted seminars to raise awareness of these obligations. These measures are part of a broader initiative to enhance transparency and consumer trust in the sector. Businesses operating in the direct selling and
August 21, 2025
On August 19, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released its draft Guidelines on the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices and Conduct Constituting Monopoly, Reducing Competition, or Restricting Competition in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses in the Category of Digital Platforms for the Sale of Goods or Services (E-commerce). A public comment period on the guidelines is open until September 18. The draft provides the first detailed framework for how the TCCT will interpret and enforce the substantive provisions under the Trade Competition Act against digital platforms, which have a unique network effect and require complex competition analysis. This development will profoundly impact the operations of e-commerce platforms, sellers, and associated service providers in Thailand. The guidelines primarily target e-commerce digital platform business operators, which are defined as follows: E-commerce digital platform: A medium facilitating the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions between business operators via an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether service fees are charged. E-commerce digital platform business operator: A service provider of a digital platform for the sale of goods or services who acts as an intermediary facilitating the sale of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions through an electronic transaction system by receiving orders for goods or services transacted via an electronic system, whether in the form of an e-marketplace, a social marketplace, or any other form that connects purchase orders for goods or services with business operators through an electronic system. Prohibited Conduct The guidelines classify potentially anticompetitive conduct and unfair trade practices into two categories: price-related and non-price-related conduct. 1. Price-related conduct The TCCT is targeting pricing strategies that can harm competition. Key prohibited behaviors include: Price below cost: Setting prices below the average total cost without