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

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 INSIGHTS​ 

May 6, 2026
Thailand has introduced new requirements for online social media platforms to verify the identity of paying advertisers before publishing their advertisements. On May 5, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Commission published the Notification on Measures for Prevention of Technology Crime for Online Social Media (No. 2) in the Government Gazette. The notification, which aims to prevent technology crimes such as fraud and scams, takes effect 180 days after publication (i.e., on November 1, 2026). Mandatory Advertiser Identity Verification Online social media service providers must verify the identity of every advertiser before publishing an advertisement. Verification remains valid for up to one year from the most recent verification date. The notification requires social media providers to use either of the following methods when verifying advertisers: Document-based verification: Examine government-issued identity documents (e.g., national ID, passport, or juristic person registration certificate), cross-check the connection between the advertiser and the identity documents (e.g., facial comparison with photo ID), and ensure that the identity documents are verifiable against reliable sources. Digital identity verification: Use an identity verification system with a level of assurance no lower than that prescribed by the Electronic Transactions Commission. Advertiser Data Collection and Retention Service providers must collect and retain certain data—including name, identification number, and contact details—from the start of the advertising service and for a minimum of 90 days after the end of the advertising service relationship. The same requirements apply where there is a third-party payer, such as an ad agency. Implications for Affected Businesses The notification raises two key areas of concern for affected businesses: Social media platforms must implement know-your-advertiser (KYA) onboarding as described above, including document upload and identity matching processes. The 180-day implementation window requires immediate technical and operational planning. The collection and retention of national ID cards, passport copies, and other personal
April 30, 2026
Vietnam’s Decree No. 134/2026/ND‑CP, which took effect on 9 April 2026, plays an important role in detailing and implementing Vietnam’s Intellectual Property (IP) Law in the context of rapid digital transformation and the growing application of artificial intelligence (AI). The new decree provides comprehensive guidance on the application of copyright and related‑rights regulations, addressing key issues such as authorship, ownership, statutory exceptions and limitations, registration procedures, and enforcement mechanisms. Through these measures, Decree 134 seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between safeguarding the legitimate interests of rightsholders and fostering innovation, research, and technological advancement, thereby strengthening the state’s framework for the effective management, protection, and exploitation of intellectual property in the digital and AI‑driven environment. Some notable aspects of Decree 134 are discussed below. Copyright for AI-Created Works Decree 134 provides important guidance on the determination of copyright and related rights in works created with the assistance of AI. Article 5a reaffirms the principle that human creativity remains central to copyright protection, clarifying that copyright or related rights arise only where a human makes a substantial and decisive intellectual contribution, exercises effective control over the creative outcome, and assumes responsibility for the content and its legality. At the same time, the provision confirms that AI is regarded solely as a technological tool rather than a rights‑holding subject, thus ensuring consistency with the fundamental concepts of authorship and ownership under the IP Law. By introducing requirements on transparency, proof of human contribution, and compliance with AI‑specific labelling and technical marking obligations, Decree 134 establishes a clear and enforceable legal framework for the responsible use of AI in creative activities. Lawful Use of Copyrighted Texts and Data Article 37a of Decree 134 sets out the specific conditions under which copyrighted texts and data may be lawfully used for scientific research, experimentation,
April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a