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

March 30, 2026

Thailand Issues New Competition Guidelines for Multi-Sided and E-commerce Platforms

Subscribe to Updates

On March 24, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published its long-anticipated Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses in the Government Gazette, following the conclusion of a public hearing conducted last year. The guidelines entered into force on March 25, 2026, and significantly expand the application of Thai competition law to digital platform ecosystems.

These rules introduce targeted restrictions on platform conduct, such as price-ranking algorithms and tying and bunding, that leverages network effects, and will have far-reaching implications across Thailand’s digital economy—affecting not only platform operators but also platform participants, including sellers, logistics providers, advertisers, and payment service providers operating on or alongside such platforms.

The guidelines clarify how existing prohibitions under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA)—including abuse of market dominance, cartel conduct, and unfair trade practices—apply in the context of platform-based business models. While many provisions reflect earlier draft guidelines, the final version delivers more precise definitions and clearer enforcement parameters, increasing regulatory certainty while also raising compliance expectations.

Applicability

The guidelines introduce core definitions that determine their coverage:

  • Multi-sided platform: A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting two or more groups of users, enabling them to have direct interaction in order to exchange or rely on services from one another. Examples include digital platforms for trading goods or services (e-commerce), as defined below.
  • Digital platform for trading goods or services (e-commerce): A platform that acts as an intermediary connecting the distribution, purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or services. This includes operations carried out to facilitate transactions or interactions between business operators through an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether a service fee is charged.
  • Operator of a digital platform business for trading goods or services: A provider of digital platform services for trading goods or services, as described above, operating by receiving purchase orders for goods or services transacted via electronic systems, whether in the form of an electronic marketplace, social media marketplace, or any other format that connects purchase orders for business operators’ goods or services through an electronic system.

The scope of the guidelines is intentionally broad and extends to sellers, carriers, digital media advertisers, payment channels, and platform operators that use algorithms to rank, match, or display goods or services.

Restriction of Practices

The guidelines do not adopt a per se illegality standard but rather apply a rule-of-reason principle to various price-related practices and other conduct, as described below. The conduct may still be acceptable—or in other words, not considered unfair or unreasonable—if it meets specific criteria for exemption, such as being supported by sound economic, business, or technological reasoning, or aligning with established trade practices and market customs intended to enhance or maintain competition.

The conduct must not significantly harm overall market competition, nor should it result in excessive restriction, distortion, or the imposition of an unfair burden on other business operators. Regulatory assessment may also take into account external factors such as contractual relationships and other legal limitations.

Price-Related Practices Under Scrutiny

The price-related practices now within the TCCT’s enforcement focus include:

  • Below-cost pricing: Setting prices for goods or services below their total average cost, including charging fees, expenses, or other benefits at a rate lower than the average total cost.
  • Predatory pricing: Charging fees, expenses, or other benefits at a rate lower than the average variable cost from sellers, carriers, digital media advertisers, and payment channels with the objective of foreclosing competitors. Predatory pricing requires demonstrable or foreseeable recoupment to offset previous losses and maximize long-term profits.
  • Rate parity clauses: Requiring sellers to match the platform’s prices across other channels or preventing sellers from offering lower prices elsewhere.
  • Resale price maintenance: Dictating the resale price at which sellers offer goods or services.
  • Refusal to deal: Refusing to deal with sellers who do not comply with specified pricing requirements.
  • Excessive or unreasonable pricing: Charging commissions, advertising fees, logistics fees, promotional fees, or payment-processing fees that are not reasonably justified or proportionate.
  • Price discrimination: Charging different prices or fees to similarly situated sellers or service providers.
  • Price-ranking algorithms: Using algorithms that systematically prioritize or deprioritize goods or services based on pricing in a manner that harms fair competition.

Nonprice Conduct Under Scrutiny

The guidelines also impose extensive restrictions on nonprice conduct common in platform operations, including:

  • Visibility reductions: Lowering the search ranking or display prominence of sellers’ products.
  • Self-preferencing: Favoring the platform’s own goods or services over third-party offerings.
  • Exclusionary conduct toward carriers: Refusing to allow goods delivery by seller-chosen carriers or setting default carrier assignments that prevent sellers from selecting alternative logistics providers.
  • Mandatory sales promotions: Compelling participation in sales promotion activities for an extended and continuous period, such as recurring monthly “double-date” sales promotions.
  • Mandatory payment channels: Requiring the use of payment services provided or designated exclusively by the platform.
  • Coercion to purchase: Requiring the purchase or use of any services without reasonable justification—such as utilizing a designated media advertiser.
  • Exclusive dealing arrangements: Requiring sellers to list or sell goods exclusively through the platform, or prohibiting sellers from offering products on competing platforms.
  • Refusal to deal: Banning seller accounts, delisting products, or refusing to transact with sellers.
  • Restriction of alternatives: Forcing sellers to purchase unrelated services or agree to unrelated contract terms as a condition of platform access (tying and bundling), anticompetitive use of third-party data, limiting seller choice and delisting carriers
  • Discrimination: Ranking discrimination and quantity discrimination against certain carriers.
  • Abusive data leveraging: Using competitively sensitive data obtained from third-party sellers to benefit the platform’s own competing products.
  • Self-preferencing through data use: Exploiting proprietary data to advantage the platform’s offerings.
  • Collusive conduct: Platforms colluding with one another on competitive terms, including keyword-bidding collusion.

Next Steps

The TCCT has enforcement authority to investigate, issue cease-and-desist orders, and impose penalties for violations. Platform operators and participants should review their commercial terms, algorithms, pricing policies, and contractual arrangements to ensure compliance with the new restrictions. Companies should also consider conducting internal compliance assessments and seeking legal guidance to address any potentially problematic practices before enforcement actions commence.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More