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 24, 2021

New Guidelines Prevent Large Purchasers from Setting Unfair Credit Terms for SMEs in Thailand

Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission (TCC) has adopted new guidelines on unfair trade practices regarding the credit terms under which small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sell products or services to a purchaser. The new guidelines were published in the Government Gazette on June 18, 2021, and will come into force 180 days later on December 16, 2021.

In principle, the guidelines prevent the abuse of superior bargaining power, discrimination, and business obstruction when purchasers set credit terms with SMEs. The guidelines define an SME as:

  1. a manufacturer of goods with either no more than 200 employees or an annual turnover of no more than THB 500 million (approximately USD 15.75 million); or
  2. a service provider or wholesale or retail business with either no more than 100 employees or an annual turnover of no more than THB 300 million (approximately USD 9.5 million).

To be eligible for protection under the guidelines, qualifying SMEs must disclose their total number of employees or amount of annual turnover to their trade partners.

Credit Terms

“Credit terms” are defined as written stipulations referring to the agreed timeframe in which sellers of products or services permit the purchasers to make the necessary payment. These credit terms must include clear criteria reflecting ordinary business practices and reasonable justifications.

In general, the guidelines prescribe that credit terms for the trade, manufacturing, and services sectors, must not exceed 45 days. However, for activities in these sectors related to agricultural products or primary agricultural processing with non-complex production processes, the credit terms must not exceed 30 days. However, the parties may set longer credit terms if there are business, marketing, or economic justifications and contractual obligations related to the payment or credit terms.

The credit terms period will commence from the date of complete delivery of products or services. As for consignment, credit terms begin counting from the day that the products are sold out according to the agreed quantity or price.

Unfair Practices

The guidelines provide a few illustrative examples of the types of conduct that would be deemed unfair:

  • An unjustified delay in making payment for products or services, in excess of the stipulated credit terms.
  • An unjustified change of credit terms or contractual conditions without at least 60 days’ prior notice.
  • Other unfair conduct or credit term conditions that impose excessive burdens on an SME.

Before these guidelines, when large purchasers of goods or services from SMEs defaulted on their payments or used their bargaining power to extend credit terms, the SME’s only recourse was to bring a breach-of-contract claim to the civil court. When the new guidelines come into effect, SMEs will also be able to petition the TCC, which may impose administrative sanctions including fines of up to 10% of the annual revenue of the non-complying purchaser.

In addition, pre-existing credit terms are not exempt from the new provisions and could be deemed unfair if they are contrary to the guidelines or disadvantage an SME. Therefore, business operators with active or pending agreements should also revisit and consider adjusting the credit terms to ensure that they comply with the guidelines.

Accordingly, all parties who trade with SMEs should take the guidelines—especially the prescribed maximum credit terms—into account when determining credit terms and trade conditions.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 11, 2026
Thailand’s rise as a regional hub for luxury retail has influenced how market entry is structured and assessed across Southeast Asia. As brands consider establishing a presence in the market, regulatory and operational considerations form a key part of the overall entry assessment. Foreign Ownership Restrictions for Retailers Foreign investment in retail activities is subject to a relatively extensive regulatory framework, particularly in relation to foreign ownership and the approvals required under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA). Under the FBA, a company is generally regarded as foreign if 50% or more of its shares are held by non-Thai nationals, in which case the business is required to obtain a foreign business license (FBL) issued by the director-general of the Department of Business Development, with the approval of the Foreign Business Committee. The committee will not grant an FBL unless it is convinced the proposed business demonstrates unique characteristics such as a distinctive business model, innovative processes, specialized services or products, or a clear competitive differentiation that will benefit Thailand; constitutes a highly specialized business or requires specialized technology or expertise; and will not compete with Thai business operators who engage in the same business. The committee makes its decisions on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances, which can make the licensing process less predictable in practice. However, there are also alternative pathways for consideration, including exemptions in specific circumstances. For example, foreign-owned businesses in Thailand with at least THB 100 million in registered capital are allowed to open five retail stores in the country. Some businesses may also be able to access preferential treatment under international agreements and treaties between Thailand and certain foreign states, subject to eligibility requirements. Structural and Business Model Challenges The determination of what constitutes a “retail store” may itself present
May 8, 2026
Thailand has liberalized its wine import regime, allowing, for the first time, multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brands. On March 27, 2026, the Ministry of Finance issued the Ministerial Regulation on the Importation of Alcoholic Beverages (No. 3) 2026, which waives the requirement to appoint a sole authorized agent for alcoholic beverages to be specified in notifications from the Excise Department. The Excise Department has already issued its first such notification, expressly exempting wine and sparkling wine made from grapes from the sole agent requirement. For all other types of alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer, tequila, spirits) the sole agent requirement remains in force, and applicants for importer licenses must provide evidence of exclusive distributorship issued by the manufacturer or brand owner. The exemption may be extended to other alcoholic beverage categories through future Excise Department notifications. Implications for Competition and Tourism The reform allows multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brand without routing through the brand owner’s designated exclusive importer, reducing monopolization and boosting competition. Excise Department Director-General Pornchai Thirawet noted that wine was chosen as the starting point because implementation is straightforward in this case and because domestic wine prices remain high—with increased competition expected to exert downward pressure on prices. More broadly, the reform is intended to lower market entry barriers, expand supply, and make wine more accessible to Thai consumers, while supporting Thailand’s position as a regional tourism hub. Product Quality Control and Loss of Sole Agent Accountability Under the previous framework, the designated importer bore full responsibility for the proper storage, handling, and distribution of wine and sparkling wine from importation to final sale. This arrangement helped ensure that products were maintained under appropriate conditions, including temperature control, light exposure, and humidity management, to preserve quality
April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that