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

July 26, 2021

Laos Issues E-commerce Regulations

Though online purchases of goods and services have been booming in Laos, the country’s laws and regulations have not kept pace. Providers of legal advice on these activities have therefore had to interpret laws and regulations on traditional physical retail activities instead, and apply them to online activities. However, Laos is making strides toward providing clear legal guidance for e-commerce operations by issuing legal measures to facilitate the regulation of online business activities.

For instance, on June 4, 2021, the new Decree on E-commerce No. 296/GOV (dated April 12, 2021, and published in the Lao Official Gazette on May 20) came into effect to clarify the regulatory framework for e-commerce in the country and to set requirements for electronic purchase contracts.

The decree, which applies only to operators residing or registered in Laos, regulates individuals and legal entities involved in the following activities:

  • Selling goods and services via their own electronic platform (website, program, or other instruction set);
  • Providing electronic marketplace services; and
  • Selling goods and services via electronic marketplaces.

Seller Notification Requirement

Business operators looking to sell goods or services via an electronic platform, either on their own website or application or via an electronic marketplace, must notify the relevant department of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce of their activity. (Existing operators must notify the ministry within 90 days from the decree’s effective date.) Although the chief concern of the decree is to target those whose regular activity is to sell goods and services online, the decree does not address whether those selling occasionally through an electronic marketplace still need to notify the ministry.

Documents for the notification consist primarily of the application form provided by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the enterprise registration certificate (i.e., proof of having registered a legal entity in Laos) or a simple ID card for individuals, a copy of the business operating license (for activities that require approval from a line ministry), and a copy of a contract with a payment service provider for payment via an electronic platform. Upon receipt of the necessary documentation, the ministry’s relevant departments or agencies will certify the notification within three working days. This certificate is valid for two years, and must be renewed thirty days before its expiry.

Electronic Marketplace Registration

Electronic marketplaces must be operated via an incorporated legal entity, which means an Enterprise Registration Certificate is a necessary prerequisite to operating an electronic marketplace in Laos. As for technical requirements, electronic marketplaces must obtain a Ministry of Technology and Communications certificate confirming their “technical conformity.” (The process and requirements for obtaining this certificate may be the subject of guidance that is yet to be issued.)

Similar to the grace period for the notification requirement mentioned above, existing electronic marketplace operators have 90 days (from June 4, 2021) to request authorization from the ministry. Upon receipt of the necessary documentation, the ministry’s relevant departments will consider and provide its authorization within five working days. This authorization is valid for three years, and must be renewed thirty days before its expiry.

Foreign Restrictions

Foreign shareholders cannot hold more than 90 percent of the shares of the legal entity operating an electronic marketplace, and the registered capital must be at least LAK 10 billion (approx. USD 1.05 million).

It is important to note that this decree does not replace existing laws and regulations that address certain types of goods or services sold, for which licensing, notification, minimum investment, and other requirements may apply. For instance, foreign participation in the provision of retail and wholesale services in Laos is limited under the Decision on Retail and Wholesale Business. Under this decision, a foreign shareholder who holds up to 50% of the shares in a retail or wholesale business must invest at least LAK 4 billion (approx. USD 423,350). Between LAK 10 billion (approx. USD 1.05 million) and less than LAK 20 billion (approx. USD 2.1 million) a foreign shareholder may hold 70% of the legal entity, while a foreign shareholder must invest at least LAK 20 billion to hold 100% of the shares of the marketplace’s legal entity conducting retail and wholesale services. Similar restrictions are likely to apply for online retail and wholesale businesses.

Transparency

The decree requires business operators of electronic platforms to disclose information on their platforms and activities, as well as on the goods and services sold. Accordingly, information on the business operator, such as its name, address, contact details, and Enterprise Registration Certificate or the relevant operating license, must be displayed on the electronic platform.

Descriptions of goods or services should note the product specifications (size, color, aspect, and so on) following the product labels as applicable, and product-related information such as origins, prices, return and warranty policies, related fees (e.g., shipment and payment methods), and terms and conditions. In addition, information on customers’ “satisfaction and opinion” concerning the goods and services must be displayed on the corresponding electronic platform. The decree also emphasizes that information on the goods or services offered must be realistic and portray products’ actual characteristics.

Product Liability

The decree also addresses liability for the goods and services sold, deeming electronic selling platforms and sellers on electronic marketplaces legally responsible for the goods and services they sell online.

The decree does not assign similar legal responsibility to entities operating electronic marketplaces on which the goods or services are sold. However, electronic marketplace operators are prohibited from authorizing or ignoring the sale of prohibited goods or services on their electronic marketplaces. Accordingly, they  must take a proactive role in the inspection of goods and services sold.

E-commerce Contracts

According to the decree, which endeavors to cover e-commerce contracts specifically (as opposed to electronic contracts more generally), there are two types of e-commerce contracts.

First, e-commerce contracts made via an “online ordering function” are defined as agreements between seller and client for the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, made by electronic means via the online ordering function of an electronic platform created by the “owner of the electronic platform.” Essentially, this means e-commerce contracts that cover transactions made on electronic platforms (other than electronic marketplaces), and assumes that they use electronic means of payment.

The second type of e-commerce contract is one made “via social media,” which is a term in the decree that the regulator interprets as also covering electronic marketplace contracts for the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services.

The decree stipulates that the offering of either type of e-commerce contract is governed primarily by the rules provided in the electronic platform’s terms and conditions. Upon acceptance of the offer by the seller, the e-contract will be deemed formed. The offer will be nullified if the seller does not respond within 12 hours (unlike the 15 days for a traditional contract in writing), unless otherwise stipulated in the terms and conditions of the electronic platform. The client may also cancel its offer before receiving a response from the seller.

Both types of e-commerce contracts must remain accessible to clients after the transaction, (e.g. through archives and purchase histories).

For e-commerce contracts made via the online ordering function of an electronic platform (not on an electronic marketplace), the electronic platform must have a system that allows clients to review, add, amend, confirm, or cancel an offer before formally submitting it by means of the online ordering function. In case of cancellation by the client, electronic platforms must provide clients with evidence that the notification to cancel the contract was sent.

Conclusion

E-commerce activities in Laos have typically had to rely on extensive interpretation of laws that were not made to address e-commerce. The new e-commerce decree discussed in this article is an example of how the government is working to update the regulatory framework to sustain promising high-tech sectors such as e-commerce, fintech, and others. As Laos remains a relatively untapped market in these areas, the Decree on E-commerce eases both local and international investors’ concerns about launching operations by clarifying some key issues. The decree does not address sanctions for noncompliance, and questions remain regarding some of the mandatory requirements (such as the “technical requirements”) to register an electronic marketplace. Therefore, in its current state full implementation of the decree may require subsequent guidance from the authorities.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 7, 2026
On September 4, 2026, Thailand’s prime minister convened the first meeting of the Data Center Business Policy Committee. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework for the data center industry and tasked four subcommittees with developing the standards that would sit beneath it, shifting away from fragmented, agency-by-agency approvals toward a unified national strategy aiming to maximize economic value while managing environmental and infrastructure concerns. Proposed Scope and Pillars of the National Data Center Policy Framework The proposed framework would cover all types of data centers, including internal or captive facilities operated within a company or its affiliates, rather than only commercial third-party providers. If adopted in this form, companies running private data centers purely for internal purposes would also become subject to regulatory oversight. Minimum safety and operational standards would be established, with uniform enforcement across all categories. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework with four key pillars: Industrial classification: Data centers exceeding 2 MW would be classified as industrial operations, which may require factory licenses and environmental impact assessments under the Factory Act. Resource pricing: Utility rates would be structured to reflect both direct and indirect costs, supporting green energy and green data center standards. Centralized screening: A centralized review would evaluate project suitability and resource allocation. Operators may be required to submit proposals through periodic “pitching” rounds, where projects are competitively assessed on their potential economic and strategic benefits to Thailand. Digital ecosystem: The framework would prioritize data sovereignty, tax incentives, and conditions promoting domestic digital businesses, AI, and cloud infrastructure. Multidimensional Evaluation Criteria and Subcommittees Four subcommittees will be established to develop standards responsible for the following dimensions: Economic: Criteria for assessing the economic viability of data center projects, for use in prioritizing data centers based on infrastructure readiness, demand type (including AI factories),
September 4, 2026
Foreign business restrictions on telecommunications, treasury center businesses, and intragroup support services were eased when Thailand published the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Service Businesses Not Requiring Permission for Foreign Business Operations (No. 5) B.E. 2569 (2026) in the Government Gazette on August 28, 2026. The ministerial regulation expands the categories of service businesses that foreign investors may operate without a foreign business license (FBL) under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Of particular relevance to the telecommunications, fintech, and technology sectors, the ministerial regulation exempts: Type 1 telecommunications licensees, which do not have their own networks; Treasury center businesses operated in accordance with Thailand’s exchange control regulations; and Certain intragroup administrative, human resources, and information technology management services. Telecommunications Services Foreign-owned businesses providing telecommunications services under a type 1 telecommunications license may now operate without obtaining an FBL. This may streamline market entry for qualifying telecommunications and digital infrastructure businesses. The exemption applies only to the FBA licensing requirement. Operators must continue to comply with applicable requirements under the Telecommunications Business Act and the regulations of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, and the change does not affect foreign ownership restrictions applicable to type 2 or type 3 telecommunications businesses. Treasury Center Businesses The ministerial regulation also exempts qualifying treasury center businesses from the FBL requirement. This may facilitate centralized treasury functions in Thailand, including liquidity management, foreign exchange management, and intragroup funding arrangements. Treasury center operations remain subject to applicable requirements of the Bank of Thailand and other competent authorities. Intragroup Administrative, HR, and IT Services Certain administrative, human resources, and information technology management services provided between affiliated entities are also exempt, provided the relevant entities satisfy prescribed ownership or management criteria. The exemption is available where the service provider and recipient are related through specified ownership
September 2, 2026
Thailand and China have a longstanding and significant trade relationship, which increasingly extends to e-commerce and digitally enabled supply chains. While these channels create new opportunities for businesses to reach consumers across borders, their growth also brings greater exposure to intellectual property (IP) infringement across jurisdictions and online platforms. Effective cooperation between the two countries’ enforcement authorities has therefore become increasingly important. To strengthen cooperation in this area, Thailand and China signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on IP enforcement in Beijing on July 20, 2026, during the Thai prime minister’s official visit to China. Officially titled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China and the Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand on Cooperation in the Field of Intellectual Property Enforcement,” the MOU forms part of a broader bilateral agenda covering industrial and supply chains, participation by micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), cooperation associated with the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area 3.0, and progress on the registration of Thai geographical indications in China. The MOU establishes a bilateral framework for cooperation and coordination in five broad areas: Strengthening dialogue in IP enforcement; Enhancing information sharing; Facilitating the enforcement of IP rights in cases arising in the parties’ domestic markets and on online platforms, in accordance with their respective domestic laws; Promoting cooperation in IP enforcement training and human resource development; and Undertaking other cooperation activities agreed upon by both sides. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) will serve as the principal coordinating agency for Thailand, while the Bureau of Law Enforcement and Inspection in China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) will serve in that role for China. The framework is particularly relevant to the growth of e-commerce, as it covers infringement in the domestic markets and on
August 27, 2026
Franchising in Thailand has matured into a sizeable commercial sector, but the rules governing franchisor–franchisee relationships remain scattered across general legislation rather than consolidated in a dedicated franchise statute. In this environment, the decisions of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) have emerged as valuable practical guidance. Thailand follows a civil-law system in which judicial and administrative decisions do not create binding precedent; however, past rulings are nonetheless influential. This article examines the most instructive recent TCCT decisions and distills the practical compliance considerations for franchisors and franchisees operating in Thailand. Postcontract Changes: Justified or Unfair? A recurring issue is whether a franchisor may alter the terms of engagement after contract execution. The TCCT has established that midterm modifications are not inherently unfair; the determinative factors are whether there was a reasonable business justification, adequate advance notice, and a transparent process. In a 2023 coffee franchise matter, for instance, the TCCT declined to find a violation where a franchisor increased raw material prices, noting the increase had been communicated in advance and supported by demonstrable cost pressures. A bubble tea franchise matter reinforces this principle. The TCCT found that postcontract mandatory purchases of branded syrup and flavorings were justified, as the agreement reserved the franchisor’s right to modify product requirements, the materials were sold at or below market prices, and the branded ingredients possessed distinctive qualities deemed essential to franchise quality. The complaint was dismissed, with the additional requirements characterized as a legitimate measure to preserve brand consistency. Considered together, these decisions indicate that post‑contract modifications will be evaluated against three criteria: (1) whether there is a legitimate business rationale, (2) whether adequate advance notice was provided, and (3) whether franchisees were treated equitably throughout the transition. Discriminatory Treatment: Are Renewals and Information Equal? A 2024 automotive dealership