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

December 24, 2019

Thailand Issues Restrictions on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses

Subscribe to Updates

On December 6, 2019, the Notification Regarding the Guidelines for the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses was issued to prevent franchisors from adopting overly restrictive and unfair contractual conditions that are deemed to potentially cause damage to franchisees. The notification will become effective on February 4, 2020.

This notification emphasizes and compiles in one place a number of requirements that mirror provisions already set out in other laws and regulations, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act, Ministerial Regulation 25 under the Patent Act, and the Civil and Commercial Code. It was issued by the Office of the Trade Competition Commission, which is empowered under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to regulate unfair trade practices in certain selected businesses. The longstanding draft Franchising Business Act—if passed into law—may have further implications on the interpretation of this notification as there are similar restrictions set out in the draft law.

The notification imposes two main obligations on the franchisor:

  • Obligation to disclose important information relating to the franchise. Prior to entering into a franchise agreement, the franchisor must disclose important relevant information to the franchisee, such as details on (1) the royalty fee and other mandatory payments relating to the operation of the franchise business, (2) the franchise business model, (3) the intellectual property rights, and (4) the renewal and termination of the franchise agreement.
  • Obligation to notify and offer the right of first refusal to the nearest franchisee. If the franchisor intends to open and manage a new branch in the vicinity of the franchisee’s area of operations, the franchisor is required to first offer the franchisee in that area the right to operate the branch.

The notification also prohibits the franchisor from engaging in the following trade practices that may cause damage to the franchisee:

  • Setting restrictive conditions for the franchisee without justifiable reasons, such as forcing the franchisee to exclusively buy products or services that are irrelevant to the operation of the franchise business from a designated business operator.
  • Setting additional conditions for the franchisee to comply with, after the franchise agreement has already been executed. Exceptions may apply if there is a justifiable reason and any additional conditions are made in writing.
  • Restricting the franchisee, without justifiable reasons, from purchasing products from other business operators that offer products with comparable quality but at a lower price.
  • Restricting the franchisee, without justifiable reasons, from offering discounts on perishable goods or products close to their expiration.
  • Setting discriminatory conditions among franchisees, without justifiable reasons. Setting any inappropriate conditions for purposes other than to maintain the reputation, quality, and standards of the franchisor in accordance with the franchise agreement.

For more information on this topic, or on any other aspect of trade competition in Thailand, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected] or +66 2056 5555.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Corporate/M&A

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 24, 2025
Thailand currently lacks a specific franchise act. Consequently, the legality of any franchise agreement is determined by its compliance with various existing laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Code, the Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991) (as amended), and the Unfair Contract Terms Act B.E. 2530 (1997). Thailand is a freedom-to-contract jurisdiction. This allows for a high degree of flexibility and autonomy in contractual arrangements, provided that the terms do not violate any laws or public policy and do not fall under the scope of unfair contract terms. Given this, the requirement for fairness in franchise agreement terms often leads to uncertainty, but decisions from the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) can provide guidance on whether specific contentious terms are in fact fair.  One issue worth examining in this light is the inclusion of terms on nonrefundable franchise fees and strict purchasing conditions. Franchise Fee: Unfair to Refuse Refund? Nonrefundable franchise fees represent a significant upfront investment for franchisees, often becoming a point of contention if the franchise relationship deteriorates or the franchisor ceases operations. Their fairness and enforceability are frequently scrutinized by regulatory bodies like the TCCT, highlighting the critical balance between contractual freedom and franchisee protection. Faced with one such case, the TCCT considered whether it was unfair for the franchisor to refuse to refund the franchise fee after the franchisor ceased operations.  The franchisee had entered into a service agreement on August 2, 2021, and begun operating on October 9, 2021. However, by November 21, 2023, the franchisee was notified that the system would be shut down for maintenance, and by December 26, 2023, the franchisor announced the cessation of operations due to financial losses. The franchisee then requested a refund of the franchise fee. Unfortunately for the franchisee, the TCCT found that the franchisor’s
Read More
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
Read More
October 20, 2025
Global trade has become an everyday issue with immense effects on trade and the economy. Today’s global trade climate sees countries around the world engaged in trade negotiations aspiring to eliminate trade barriers. Customs tariffs and associated privileges are among the issues that most impact global trade flows and the import-export sector. Thailand has negotiated customs tariff privileges as part of its 14 free trade agreements (FTAs) with 18 countries, including six bilateral and eight regional agreements. These FTAs set forth criteria for member states to comply with and adopt into national law. To achieve customs privileges, one of the most important criteria is rules of origin, which indicate the originating country of imported or exported goods and the accompanying duty rates or privileges for reduction or exemption. Rules of Origin Under FTAs The rules of origin mapped out in FTAs allow for duty exemptions or rate reductions based on the determination of goods’ country of origin. This largely includes two main categories: Wholly obtained (WO) means the product was entirely produced in a single originating country and does not include any foreign (non-originating) content or manufacturing process. Product specific rules (PSR) are detailed criteria that define how each product’s origin is determined. PSR criteria that are often found in FTAs include “change in tariff classification” (determining origin based on sufficient transformation of materials), “regional value content” (requiring a minimum percentage of value to be added locally), and specific manufacturing or processing operations (mandating particular production steps occur in the originating country). These criteria also extend to cover other subordinated methods of verification, such as accumulation rules and de minimis rules, to provide more flexibility for the establishment of origins and tariff privileges under such FTAs. Compliance Challenges Despite attempts to promote international trade and eliminate trade barriers through
Read More