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​ 

June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More