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 21, 2025

Thailand Seeks Comments on Draft Trade Practice Guidelines for E-commerce

Subscribe to Updates

On August 19, 2025, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released its draft Guidelines on the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices and Conduct Constituting Monopoly, Reducing Competition, or Restricting Competition in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses in the Category of Digital Platforms for the Sale of Goods or Services (E-commerce). A public comment period on the guidelines is open until September 18.

The draft provides the first detailed framework for how the TCCT will interpret and enforce the substantive provisions under the Trade Competition Act against digital platforms, which have a unique network effect and require complex competition analysis. This development will profoundly impact the operations of e-commerce platforms, sellers, and associated service providers in Thailand.

The guidelines primarily target e-commerce digital platform business operators, which are defined as follows:

  • E-commerce digital platform: A medium facilitating the sale, purchase, or exchange of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions between business operators via an electronic transaction system, regardless of whether service fees are charged.
  • E-commerce digital platform business operator: A service provider of a digital platform for the sale of goods or services who acts as an intermediary facilitating the sale of goods or services, including any operations to create transactions or interactions through an electronic transaction system by receiving orders for goods or services transacted via an electronic system, whether in the form of an e-marketplace, a social marketplace, or any other form that connects purchase orders for goods or services with business operators through an electronic system.

Prohibited Conduct

The guidelines classify potentially anticompetitive conduct and unfair trade practices into two categories: price-related and non-price-related conduct.

1. Price-related conduct

The TCCT is targeting pricing strategies that can harm competition. Key prohibited behaviors include:

  • Price below cost: Setting prices below the average total cost without reasonable justification.
  • Rate parity clauses: Prohibiting sellers from offering lower prices on competing platforms or other channels.
  • Resale price maintenance: Imposing resale prices and penalizing sellers that do not comply (e.g., refusal to deal).
  • Excessive or discriminatory fees: Charging unjustified commission, advertising/affiliate ad fees, logistics/pickup fees, promotion fees, or payment fees, particularly when fees are aligned with competitors (parallel pricing), are below average total cost (price below cost), are below average variable costs (predatory pricing), or are applied in a discriminatory manner (e.g., different rates for mall sellers and non-mall sellers).
  • Algorithmic price manipulation: Deploying an automated ranking or price ranking system that directly or indirectly distorts fair competition without reasonable justification.
  1. Non-price-related conduct
    Equally important are non-price-related practices that may constitute unfair conduct. These include:
  • Self-preferencing: Using algorithms or platform design to block or limit the visibility of a seller’s products while giving preferential treatment to the platform’s own products or those of favored partners.
  • Tying and coercion: Forcing sellers to use specific services offered by the platform or its designated partners. This includes mandating the use of the platform’s own logistics provider, payment gateway, or advertising services, such as monthly recurring promotional activities (e.g., double-date sales).
  • Exclusive dealing: Imposing conditions that restrict a seller’s rights, such as forbidding them from selling on competing e-commerce platforms and penalizing them with account suspension or delisting in case of deviation.
  • Discrimination: Treating different business partners unequally without justification. Examples include ranking the products of one seller higher than another for no valid reason (ranking discrimination) or allocating unequal order volumes among logistics providers (quantity discrimination).
  • Data leveraging: Using data collected from sellers to give the platform’s own affiliated businesses an unfair competitive advantage.
  • Collusion: Coordinating with competing platforms or sellers on actions such as keyword bidding for advertisements.

Implications for Businesses

The TCCT is intensifying its focus on digital platform businesses, particularly those operating in multi-sided markets, e-commerce operators, and e-marketplaces. The guidelines signal that platform business operators, sellers, carriers, advertisers, and payment service providers must reassess their commercial arrangements and algorithms to ensure compliance. Practices previously considered routine, such as mandating logistics partners or aligning prices through rate party requirements, may now be scrutinized as unfair.

Importantly, the TCCT emphasizes that unfair or unreasonable practices can be assessed from business operators not being able to demonstrate their economic, business, or marketing justifications or provide reasonable explanations based on commercial dynamics or technological advancements.

Engagement through Public Hearings

While providing much-needed clarity, the broad language and far-reaching implications of the draft guidelines could create significant compliance challenges for platform and e-commerce operators and fundamentally alter the business strategies of all stakeholders.

This public hearing period is a critical opportunity for businesses to shape the final form of these regulations. Submitting well-reasoned comments can help ensure that the final guidelines are practical and balanced, and foster genuine competition and innovation.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More