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

May 6, 2025

Key Findings from OECD Review of Thailand’s Competition Law

Subscribe to Updates

On May 2, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT), in cooperation with the OECD, held a conference to discuss the results of the OECD Peer Review of Thailand’s competition law and policy. This review, conducted under the second phase of the OECD-Thailand Country Program, marks a significant milestone in Thailand’s ongoing institutional reform. Tilleke & Gibbins’ trade competition experts were invited to participate in both the program and the conference.

The OECD Peer Review aimed to assess the current state of Thailand’s legal and regulatory environment surrounding competition law and policies, pinpoint strengths and weaknesses, and offer recommendations on potential future development. This article highlights the review’s key findings and recommendations, and their implications for businesses operating in Thailand.

Institutional Framework: Room for Improvement

Competition law in Thailand has undergone significant transformation, particularly since the enactment of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA). This landmark legislation aimed to revolutionize the competition regime, notably by amending important legal provisions to enhance public enforcement capabilities and establishing the TCCT as an independent authority separate from government ministries, endowed with its own budget and powers to enforce competition law across key areas: anticompetitive agreements, abuse of dominant market positions, merger control, and unfair trade practices. The goal was to create a more efficient, flexible, and independent agency and to prevent political intervention.

However, the OECD Peer Review points out a major impediment. The TCCT faces considerable budget and human resource constraints, which may impact its enforcement capacity. Its budget is comparatively low by international and regional standards, and only a fraction of its staff is dedicated to core competition enforcement (merger control and anticompetitive behavior). Furthermore, there is room for the TCCT to continue its improvements in expertise and efficiency—areas the TCCT has been attempting to shore up in recent years.

Scope of Application: Key Exclusions

A critical aspect noted by the OECD is the TCA’s scope of application, which contains broad exemptions in relation to the following areas:

  • State-owned enterprises (SOEs): While the 2017 TCA aimed to reduce the scope of exemptions for SOEs, SOEs remain predominantly outside the TCA’s reach if their undertakings relate to national security, public interest, public utilities, or societal interests based on law or cabinet resolutions. In practice, the TCCT appears to consider most SOEs exempt, even when competing with private players, which can create an uneven playing field.
  • Regulated sectors: Businesses specifically regulated by other sectoral laws with jurisdiction over competition matters (like telecommunications, energy, banking, and insurance) are excluded from the TCA. However, the competition rules and enforcement powers within these sectoral laws vary substantially, leading to a fragmented landscape and potential enforcement gaps. Clarity is needed on jurisdictional boundaries, especially in cross-sector cases, and the principle of competitive neutrality should be observed.
  • Extraterritoriality: It remains unclear whether the TCA applies to anticompetitive conduct occurring outside Thailand but having effects within the country. The current interpretation seems to limit enforcement against foreign entities without a Thai presence, potentially leaving international cartels or foreign mergers affecting the Thai market unaddressed.

Enforcement: Obstacles and Need for Reforms

Competition enforcement in Thailand is still developing, and the past seven years saw a low number of enforcement cases reported to the public. The OECD Peer Review Report outlines the following challenges:

  • Standard of proof: Hardcore cartels (with agreements on price-fixing, output restrictions, market allocation, or bid rigging) and abuse of dominance are exclusively criminal offenses. This requires a very high standard of proof (“beyond reasonable doubt”), making successful prosecution difficult. Most jurisdictions make administrative tools available for competition authorities to impose fines on infringements.
  • Rule of reason for cartels: Even hardcore cartels are assessed under a rule of reason, requiring proof of market effects and potentially exempting collusion with a combined market share of below 10%. This contrasts with the standard international practice of treating hardcore cartels as per se (inherently) illegal.
  • Bid rigging: Ambiguity exists regarding jurisdiction over bid rigging in public procurement. In Thailand, the National Anti-Corruption Commission typically has jurisdiction over public procurement in regard to anticorruption concerns, potentially leaving a gap in competition-focused enforcement.
  • Abuse of dominance: The assessment focuses more on the “unfairness” or “unreasonableness” of conduct rather than its impact on competition. Determining dominance itself relies heavily on market share and revenue thresholds, potentially overlooking other market power indicators.
  • Detection: Enforcement hinges primarily on complaints filed by business operators or any third party. A leniency program or whistleblower protections have not been formally introduced, but both tools are crucial for cartel detection globally.
  • Transparency: The TCCT generally does not publish a full version of their decisions but only brief summaries. This may hinder legal certainty, deterrence, and public understanding.

Merger Control: A Complex Dual System

Thailand operates a two-tiered merger control system:

  1. Premerger (ex-ante) approval: Required for mergers that may cause a monopoly or result in a dominant position. The TCCT can approve, approve with remedies, or prohibit these mergers.
  2. Postmerger (ex-post) notification: Required within seven days post-completion for mergers that may substantially reduce competition but do not fulfill the ex-ante criteria. The TCCT has no power to intervene (impose remedies or prohibit) in these notified mergers, even if anticompetitive concerns may be found.

Major issues with this two-tiered system identified by the OECD include:

  • Ineffective ex-post system: The inability to act on an ex-post notification may weaken enforcement on merger deals that presage competition restraint from the outset.
  • Unclear thresholds: Notification thresholds are linked to the potential competitive effect (monopoly, dominance, substantial lessening of competition), requiring complex analysis before notification and creating uncertainty. Clearer, objective criteria (such as turnover, potentially with a local nexus) are recommended.
  • Possibly high thresholds: The relatively low number of ex-ante filings (only 12 from 2017 to 2023) suggests current thresholds might be too high, potentially allowing anticompetitive deals to escape review.
  • Substantive test: The assessment appears focused on market structure (creation of dominance) rather than a broader “substantial lessening of competition” test used in many jurisdictions.
  • Procedure: Lack of third-party participation rights, potentially short review timelines for complex cases, and limited transparency regarding decisions are concerns.

Principal OECD Recommendations

The OECD Peer Review provides numerous recommendations, including:

  • Scope: Apply competition law consistently to SOEs engaged in economic activities and clarify jurisdiction in regulated sectors. Ensure extraterritorial application.
  • Resources and structure: Increase the TCCT budget and enforcement members of staff. Reconsider the role of external inquiry subcommittees.
  • Transparency and fairness: Publish decisions consisting of facts, legal basis, and penalties while protecting legitimate confidentiality. Improve procedural rules and rights of defense.
  • Enforcement: Empower the TCCT to impose administrative sanctions against hardcore cartels and abuse of dominance. Consider hardcore cartels inherently illegal. Clarify bid-rigging jurisdiction. Focus assessment of abuse of dominance on competitive impact. Introduce leniency/whistleblower programs.
  • Merger control: Streamline the regime (potentially removing the ex-post system or giving the TCCT powers within it). Adopt clear, objective notification thresholds, potentially lower them, and add a local nexus. Allow concerned parties to be involved in each stage of review and third-party input. Introduce a simplified procedure for a transaction that does not cause significant competition concerns (e.g., no horizontal overlaps or vertical relationships between the concerned parties, meeting criteria for combined market shares).

While Thailand made strides in the application and enforcement of competition law upon the enactment of the 2017 TCA, the OECD Peer Review underlines significant challenges that need to be addressed. An implementation of the OECD’s recommendations will be crucial for fostering a truly competitive environment that benefits businesses and consumers alike. For businesses having an operation in Thailand regardless of having a physical presence, understanding these ongoing developments and potential reforms is vital for navigating the competition law landscape effectively.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More
June 7, 2024
On March 7, 2024, Laos moved to regulate the management of foreign-currency income from the exportation of goods and services. Effective March 29, 2024, Decision No. 333 (formally the Decision on Management of Income in Foreign Currency from Exportation of Goods and Services No. 333/BOL) from the Bank of Lao PDR (BOL) aims to incentivize the inflow of such foreign currency into Laos and its sale to licensed commercial banks. Decision No. 333 sets minimum required proportions for importing income in foreign currency derived from the exportation of goods and services, as well as the timeframe for doing so. It also stipulates the requirements for selling such foreign currency to commercial banks in Laos and the minimum proportions that must be sold. Importing Foreign-Currency Income Exporters must receive payments from abroad via bank transfer into a dedicated bank account designated for import-export business activities within the timeline specified in the sale-purchase agreement, but not exceeding 180 days from the date of export. Each sector must import income in foreign currency into the Lao PDR according to the minimum proportion of currency to be imported, and it must be done within the required timeframes, as specified in the table below. The ratios and timeframes are subject to change depending on the circumstances. If exporters cannot comply with the required ratio and timeline, exporters must provide relevant explanatory documents for the BOL’s consideration. Selling Foreign-Currency Income Exporters of goods and services must sell at least the minimum required proportion of their foreign-currency income (see table below) to a commercial bank in Laos. This foreign currency exchange must occur within three working days of receiving the foreign currency into the dedicated bank account in Laos. The selling rate will be determined by the prevailing rate of the commercial bank on the day
Read More
June 6, 2024
On May 30, 2024, the Department of Trade (DOT) under Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued two measures tightening restrictions on the arrival and storage of imported goods before the necessary import licenses are obtained. Newsletter No. 3/2024 declares that legal enforcement against goods arriving at ports without the requisite import licenses will commence on July 1, 2024, pursuant to the Export-Import Law, and Newsletter No. 2/2024 reduces the types of goods that may be stored in bonded warehouses without an import license. Arrival of Goods at Ports Pending Import Licenses In July 2020, the MOC had issued a notification outlining the regulations for the importation of goods requiring import licenses prior to their arrival at the ports. This notification stated that actions may be taken under the Export-Import Law against importers who deliver goods to ports before obtaining the necessary import licenses from the MOC. Subsequently, the MOC issued a similar warning to importers in 2022 and a more recent announcement dated April 5, 2024. Now with the issuance of Newsletter No. 3/2024, the DOT is preparing to strengthen its enforcement against goods arriving at ports without the necessary import license already having been obtained. Storage of Goods in Customs Warehouses In December 2023, the MOC issued Newsletter No. 16/2023, which permitted 14 categories of goods to be stored in bonded areas without an import license. However, the DOT’s Newsletter No. 2/2024 eliminated most of the items on that product list, leaving only four categories of goods: Medicines, Various electric vehicles and related accessories, Industrial raw materials and chemical raw materials for industry, and Food raw materials. This allowance is only applicable for bonded areas that comply with customs procedures for bonded warehouses. Newsletter No. 2/2024 takes effect on June 7, 2024. Starting on this date, the MOC
Read More
March 25, 2024
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Vietnam have provided an updated Vietnam chapter for Fashion Law 2024, a guide to law surrounding the business of fashion in jurisdictions around the world. The guide, which covers 20 key jurisdictions in the global fashion industry, offers insights into local legal frameworks for a range of issues, such as brand enforcement and protection, e-commerce and marketing, and sustainability. The Vietnam chapter of Fashion Law 2024 provides detailed information on the following topics: Main intellectual property rights for fashion products Contractual arrangements in manufacturing, distribution, and advertising Regulations and enforcement of online marketing Unfair competition rules and judicial interpretation Specific regulations on sustainability and ESG in fashion Special import and export rules for fashion products The full Vietnam chapter is available for free through the button below and on the Global Legal Post website. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Thailand chapter to the guide.
Read More