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

November 28, 2016

Direct Sale and Direct Marketing Act: Draft Amendments Could Pose Challenges to Operators

Informed Counsel

In recent years, the Thai government has attempted to strike a balance between attracting investment and protecting consumer interests. On the one hand, it has tried to liberalize foreign investment, eradicate bureaucratic red tape, and introduce investment promotion and investor-friendly policies through tax and non-tax incentives. On the other hand, it has enacted a number of laws and regulations to enhance consumer protection.

Despite this balancing act, certain laws and regulations still impose stringent requirements on business operators. This includes the Direct Sale and Direct Marketing Act B.E. 2545 (2002) (Act), which requires business operators to register with the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) prior to commencing a direct sale or direct marketing business in Thailand. Business operators, and particularly foreign business operators, have faced frequent impediments during registration, caused by stringent processes, policy reviews, and documentation requirements, which are imposed by officials who are tasked with enforcing and applying the Act.

The officials typically request applicants to revise certain documents, such as their product catalogs, marketing plans, and benefit and compensation schemes, on the basis that they do not meet the officials’ guidelines. These guidelines, however, are not publicly available. Therefore, not only are business operators faced with strict requirements, but the requirements are also obscure, resulting in a registration process that is time consuming and unpredictable.

A number of draft amendments to the Act have been proposed which will introduce significant changes to its substantive and procedural provisions. This article discusses the amendments, and the impact on business operators and consumers.

Key Amendments and Requirements for Applications

The amendments introduce a definition for a “company,” which was not previously defined. This is intended to limit qualified applicants to juristic persons that have registered capital (i.e., only limited companies under the Civil and Commercial Code and public limited companies under the law relating to Public Limited Companies).

Companies that qualify for registration are subsequently required to fulfill statutory requirements, including the need to have paid-up capital amounting to not less than THB 10 million, and not revoking the direct sale or direct marketing registration within a period of five years prior to the application submission date.

Directors or persons who have the power to manage the company must not be: (1) declared bankrupt; (2) adjudged incompetent or quasi-incompetent; (3) imprisoned by a final judgement, excluding imprisonment for negligence or misdemeanors; (4) a director or an authorized person in another company which has already been granted direct sale or direct marketing registration; and (5) a director or an authorized person in any company whose registration has been revoked.

A direct sale and direct marketing committee is prohibited from holding more than 10 percent of the shares in a company conducting a direct sale or direct marketing business within a period of one year prior to and during their time in office, in order to avoid conflicts of interest.

To apply for registration, applicants are required to provide a guarantee to the registrar in accordance with the amount prescribed by Ministerial Regulation, but this amount must not be less than THB 500,000. The guarantee may be in the form of cash, a bank guarantee, government bonds, bonds issued by state enterprises, or other properties which are stipulated in a notification of the direct sale and direct marketing committee. This guarantee may be used to pay damages incurred by consumers as a result of breaches of buy-sell agreements committed by the operators.

The amendments also impose reporting duties on both direct sale and direct marketing operators. If operators relocate their office, they are required to notify the registrar within 15 days from the relocation date. In addition, operators must submit reports on their business operations to the registrar, in accordance with the forms, guidelines, and periods prescribed in a notification issued by the direct sale and direct marketing committee. Any transfer or cessation of operations must be approved by the registrar, in conjunction with publishing a notification in a local newspaper and informing consumers by registered mail or through another medium of communication.

Increased Protection for Consumers

The amendments impose a number of additional responsibilities and liabilities, including the requirement that direct sale operators must be jointly liable to consumers who purchase goods or services from independent distributors, even though ownership of such goods or services is transferred from the operators to the independent distributors.

The responsibility to prepare buy-sell documents for goods or services also falls on operators, and such documents must be provided to consumers, together with the purchased goods or services. For direct sales, the independent distributors must hand over the documents to consumers in place of the direct sale operators. In the event that operators or independent distributors breach these statutory duties, the buy-sell agreements will not be binding on consumers.

Penalties for Registration Violations

The registrar has the authority to impose corrective measures on violators for non-serious violations before revoking a registration, while serious violations will lead to a registration being revoked. The amendments also impose criminal penalties on those who fail to comply with the registrar’s orders, or who violate provisions on consumer advertisements and communication.

The amendments provide a transition period for operators that have already registered for direct sale and direct marketing. These operators must comply with the requirements within the prescribed time frame permitted for such matters, as stipulated under the amendments—otherwise, their registrations will be automatically revoked.

While the amendments aim to protect consumers from unaccountable business operators, the additional requirements could adversely impact existing business operators that are unable to meet even more stringent requirements. If the registrations of these operators are revoked, the government may consider the consumers who were negatively affected by the revocation, and remedial measures may be enacted to counteract any ensuing issues. The draft amendments have now been submitted to the National Assembly for further consideration, and business operators in this sector will be closely monitoring the progress of their enactment.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education