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 13, 2014

Ins and Outs of Direct-Sales Registration in Thailand

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Thailand is a highly attractive market for businesses engaged in direct sales, with most of the top global companies present. The result is a 70-billion-baht industry with an annual growth rate of 8.3%. With many new companies eager to join the fray, this article provides an introduction to the legal requirements necessary to proceed with a direct-sales venture.

Most business activities in Thailand require registrations and/or licenses in order be carried out legally, and the direct-sales business is no exception. Under the Direct Sales and Direct Marketing Act of 2002 (DSA), operators are obligated to register with the secretary of the Consumer Protection Board (as the registrar) through the direct-sales section of the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB).

The DSA defines “direct sales” as the marketing of goods or services in a manner of communicating information for the sale of goods or services directly to the consumer at home or the workplace or any other place that is not an ordinary place of business through a direct-sales representative or one or more levels of independent distributors.

With the OCPB as the authority responsible for registration, an application by a direct-sales business operator to this government body will undergo a thorough examination aimed at protecting consumers’ rights. Under the provisions stipulated in the DSA, once the registrar determines that an application complies with the conditions and relevant regulations prescribed in the DSA, the registrar must accept and process the registration within 45 days from the receipt of the application.

On the other hand, if the registrar concludes that an application does not comply with the law, the applicant will be notified to amend it within a reasonable period of time. Upon resubmission of the revised application, the registrar will process the registration within 30 days if it meets all criteria.

In practice, these prescribed time periods do not apply until an application has passed a preliminary review by the direct-sales section and reached the registrar. There is no time limit on the preliminary review stage, and it may take up to two years, depending on the complexity of the applicant’s compensation plan.

While the DSA does not require that an applicant be a company formed in Thailand, in practice this is generally preferred. Additionally, the direct-sales section will often expect a company to have at least one Thai director, and if all directors are foreigners, at least one must hold a valid work permit.

Of utmost importance in terms of the required documents in an application is a compensation or remuneration plan for distributors or representatives. The direct-sales section will examine in great detail whether such plans comply with Section 21 of the DSA. The plan must:

  • Not require an independent distributor to purchase goods;
  • Not encourage an independent distributor to purchase goods in unreasonably large amounts; and
  • Clearly demonstrate remuneration payment calculations.

The direct-sales section also goes by many unwritten internal rules that may be subject to change if the head or registrar is replaced. By way of example, calculation intervals and remuneration payments should not be less than 14 days, but the determined scope of these periods is at the officer’s discretion, as according to Section 25 an independent distributor can return any purchased products to the company within 15 days.

Furthermore, if the direct-sales section finds a description in a product catalogue to be an advertisement that contains wording that should be reviewed by the advertisement committee, the direct-sales section may order the company to obtain a written opinion from the advertisement committee.

The product catalogue will be reviewed in great depth, and if it contains any scientific claims, the company must be able to demonstrate scientific test results issued by a reliable organization in support of such claims. Unlike direct-sales registration, obtaining the advertisement committee’s opinion is not free of charge, and it will likely delay the registration process.

Upon the completion of registration, if any changes are made to the documents submitted to the OCPB, the company must inform the OCPB of such changes. Although the registration does not need to be renewed, the company must report its business progress to the OCPB each January and July.

Many of the above requirements are yet to be set in stone, but once written guidelines are entered into Thai law, prospective direct-sales business operators will be able to plan their business strategies more effectively. Until then, they are advised to seek legal counsel to navigate this shifting legal landscape.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More