Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the

Thailand is developing new legislation on responsible business conduct that would impose statutory obligations on large enterprises to manage human rights and environmental risks throughout their operations and supply chains. The Draft Act on the Promotion of Responsible Business Conduct, commonly referred to as the Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HRDD) Bill, has been developed through extensive consultation involving a wide range of stakeholders, with the Ministry of Justice playing a leading role. If enacted, the HRDD bill would reshape how certain large businesses operate and manage their supply chains, reflecting a recognition of international standards and global concerns regarding human rights and environmental protection. By introducing legally binding due diligence obligations, the draft aims to ensure that businesses operating in Thailand are held accountable for adverse impacts throughout their operations and supply chains, in line with emerging global legal frameworks. Who Will Have to Comply? The HRDD bill primarily targets large enterprises based on their annual revenue thresholds: Manufacturing businesses with annual revenue exceeding THB 500 million Wholesale, retail, or service businesses with annual revenue exceeding THB 300 million The draft would also cover state-owned enterprises and foreign businesses operating in Thailand if their operations meet the applicable revenue thresholds. What Does Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Involve? Under the HRDD bill, due diligence is not a one-time checklist but an ongoing process with several key requirements: Adopt and publicly disclose a sustainability policy. Businesses must commit publicly to respecting human rights and protecting the environment, and must integrate this policy into corporate governance and risk management systems. Identify and assess risks. Companies must identify and assess risks of human rights violations and environmental harm across their operations and value chains. Prevent or reduce risks. Businesses must implement effective and proportionate measures to prevent or mitigate

On December 17, 2025, Laos’ Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) issued a notice introducing a new digital system that allows e-commerce businesses to obtain required certificates and licenses through an online, application-based platform. Notice No. 3988, which will take effect on February 1, 2026, introduces the E-Trust platform, a downloadable application that allows e-commerce businesses to remotely obtain acknowledgement certificates and business operating licenses. New Digital Registration Options Under the previous framework established by the Decree on E-commerce (2021), businesses were required to complete registration exclusively through paper-based submissions. The new system now offers businesses two registration options: Traditional paper-based process at the Division of E-commerce Management within the MOIC; or Electronic registration and renewal through the E-Trust platform. This change is expected to streamline procedures, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance accessibility for businesses operating outside Vientiane. The E-Trust platform facilitates compliance for both individuals and legal entities required to submit applications and renewals for required certificates and licenses. The development is particularly beneficial for businesses located in remote provinces, as it eliminates the need for physical travel and significantly accelerates processing times. Compliance Requirements and Penalties Businesses must obtain or renew the required certificates and licenses to avoid sanctions under the Decision on Fines and Other Measures for Violation of the Decree and Regulations on E-commerce (No. 2828/MOIC, dated November 11, 2025). Penalties for noncompliance may include monetary fines and other enforcement measures.

Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”