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

June 4, 2025

Exemption Requests under Cambodia’s Competition Law for Franchise Agreements

Subscribe to Updates

On April 2, 2024, the Cambodian Competition Commission (CCC) issued Decision No. 087 on Requirements and Procedures of Exemptions under the Law on Competition, outlining the requirements and procedures for requesting exemptions for agreements or activities that could prevent, restrict, or distort competition in Cambodia.

Franchise agreements often include clauses such as price fixing, exclusive supply arrangements, or territorial restrictions, which could potentially raise concerns under the Law on Competition. Therefore, it is necessary for both franchisors and franchisees to understand how the law applies to their agreements and whether an exemption request may be required.

Some arrangements under franchise agreements may fall within the scope of prohibited practices under the Law on Competition. These include horizontal and vertical agreements, abuse of dominant position, and anti-competitive business combination. If a business owner contemplates that their franchise agreement could be interpreted as anti-competitive, they must assess whether to apply for an exemption.

Key Criteria for Exemption

Under Decision No. 087, the CCC may grant an exemption if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed agreement or activity meets all four of the following conditions:

  1. Significant and identifiable benefits: The agreement must provide clear technological, social, or economic benefits such as cost efficiencies, qualitative efficiencies, initiations of new technologies, or environmental and sustainable benefits.
  2. Necessity of the agreement/activities: These benefits must not be achievable without the proposed agreement or activity. The applicant must show that prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition are essential to realizing the benefits.
  3. Benefits outweigh harm: The positive impacts must significantly outweigh any adverse effects caused by the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and the benefits should be likely to materialize within one year.
  4. No elimination of competition: The agreement must not eliminate competition in any substantial aspect of goods or services.

Application and Supporting Documents

Applicants must submit the application form and provide evidence to support their exemption request. This typically includes submitting the franchise agreement and any other relevant supporting documents that demonstrate how the agreement or activities meet the above criteria for exemption.

Pre-Application Consultation

Decision No. 087 also allows a request for a consultation with the Consumer Protection Competition and Fraud Repression (CCF) Directorate-General before submitting a formal application. This step can help clarify the requirements and ensure that the application is complete and well-supported.

As many franchise agreements may contain provisions that are considered prohibited under competition law, it is essential to stay informed about the latest regulatory developments and the authorities’ interpretation of such agreements and arrangements.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
Read More
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.
Read More
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;
Read More
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
Read More