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

August 4, 2022

New Regulations for the Import, Distribution and Sale of Cosmetics in Cambodia

Cosmetics have become an essential feature of the modern lifestyle led by many consumers in Cambodia. Every day, a wide range of new cosmetic brands, variants, and formats enter the Cambodian market, catering to a growing consumer base. The market generally relies on the import of foreign cosmetic brands, making Cambodia an attractive market for overseas cosmetics companies, but local brands are on the rise as well.

Alongside the significant growth of the cosmetics market in Cambodia, and the Royal Government’s continuing push to increase consumer protection in Cambodia, in 2022, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Prakas No. 0064 on the Requirements for Cosmetic Distribution (the Prakas). The Prakas applies to both locally manufactured and imported cosmetics, and both individual and businesses that trade in cosmetics.

The Prakas aims to regulate cosmetics and cosmetic business activities, to ensure that cosmetics distributed in Cambodia are of good quality and safe for use.  The key points contained in the Prakas are summarized below.

Legal Obligations for Trading Cosmetics

Any person trading in cosmetics, including wholesale or retail, and those that offer cosmetics as gifts or for testing, must ensure that the products are safe and meet the legal labelling requirements. Anyone trading cosmetics must respect the Law on Consumer Protection, with the Prakas highlighting key aspects of that law and referring to the applicable penalties under that law.

Online sellers of cosmetics must obtain an additional approval letter (for individuals) or a license (for legal entities) to operate an online business, issued by the MOC. In addition, they require a certificate for providing online services from the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications.

Interestingly, the Prakas does not refer to the cosmetic business licensing required under regulations issued by the Ministry of Health. As the Prakas does not outright contradict these regulations, we understand they still apply, and businesses must still obtain a cosmetic business license for almost all activities related to the trading of cosmetics.

Labelling Requirements & Information Standards

The Prakas repeats that cosmetics traded on the Cambodian market must have a product registration number from the Ministry of Health and it must be displayed on the label.

The Prakas further highlights that all cosmetics in the Cambodian market must adhere to any existing product labelling regulations, including the information standard provided under the Prakas. The label may not be misleading or deceiving to consumers.

The information that must be included on a cosmetic label—or packaging or leaflet if the product label is too small—is listed in the Prakas as follows:

  • name of product;
  • function of product;
  • instructions for usage;
  • ingredients or components;
  • country of origin;
  • quantity;
  • batch number;
  • manufacture date;
  • expiration date (if the product will expire within 30 months);
  • name and address of the company or person responsible for distribution in Cambodia; and
  • a warning message related to the product, if necessary.

The items under the information standard must be provided in Khmer language, as required under the Law on Consumer Protection (although the Prakas does not specifically highlight this language requirement).

Most imported cosmetics currently on the market do not meet the language requirement, so it will be interesting to monitor if enforcement will take place against non-Khmer, but otherwise complaint labelling.

Post Compliance Obligations

Traders of cosmetics are required to maintain proper records, including on the origin, quality, and quantity of the products, and information to facilitate the tracing of products. The records must be provided to the competent authorities upon request.

If traders become aware that their cosmetics are found to be of substandard quality, unsafe, or not in compliance with the information standards, they must initiate a recall, in cooperation with the Directorate-General of Consumer Protection Competition and Fraud Repression (CCF).

The CCF may take action against the traders that violate the Prakas and the Law on Consumer Protection, and has the power to actively inspect and investigate the market for compliance.

For more information on legal requirements in relation to cosmetic product business in Cambodia, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office at [email protected] or +855 23 964 210.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat. As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap. The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations. What Is Cultivated Meat? Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production. The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption. Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product. Thailand’s Safety
September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to