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​ 

January 22, 2026
On January 20, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Decision No. 96/QD-BTC to formally launch pilot administrative procedures for licensing crypto asset trading market services in Vietnam. The decision took immediate effect and implements the government’s pilot crypto asset market program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP. Notably, competent authorities have now begun accepting license applications, marking the first time Vietnam has operationalized a licensing pathway for crypto trading market operators. Administrative Procedures and Applications The decision stipulates procedures for (i) granting, (ii) adjusting, and (iii) revoking licenses to provide services for organizing crypto asset trading markets. It provides detailed, step-by-step guidance for each procedure, including dossier composition, internal review stages, coordination mechanisms, and statutory timelines. These procedures apply specifically to entities seeking to organize and operate crypto asset trading markets within Vietnam’s pilot regulatory framework. The MOF is the authority responsible for reviewing and deciding on the above procedures, with the State Securities Commission acting as the receiving, coordinating, and procedural focal point. For licensing applications, the MOF will coordinate with multiple authorities, including the State Bank of Vietnam and the Ministry of Public Security, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, system safety, and risk control requirements. Applications may be submitted in person, by post, or electronically via the National Public Service Portal or the administrative procedure information system, in line with applicable regulations. Statutory processing timelines vary depending on the specific procedure and stage involved. For applications to obtain a license to organize a crypto asset trading market, the process is conducted in multiple phases: The MOF will issue an initial written response within 20 working days from receipt of a complete and valid initial dossier, following which, upon submission of the full set of required documents, the MOF will complete substantive review and issue the license
Read More
January 21, 2026
On January 16, 2026, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Committee released for public comment a draft notification that would require social media platforms operating in Thailand to implement identity verification for all user accounts and advertisers, with enhanced scrutiny for high-risk advertising activities. If finalized in its current form, the Notification on Measures to Prevent Technology Crime for Social Media Service Providers would take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, fundamentally changing how platforms verify users and monetize advertising services. The public comment period is open through February 2, 2026. Mandatory User and Advertiser Identity Verification The draft establishes a universal requirement that all social media service providers implement identity verification measures for every user account. The draft imposes stricter verification obligations for advertisers than for general users. Before publishing any advertisement, platforms must verify the advertiser’s identity at a level sufficient to identify the advertiser, unless the advertiser has previously completed verification. Risk-Based Advertisement Verification The identification requirements for advertisers will be more stringent in the following cases: The advertiser has a history of user complaints or has previously violated the platform’s terms of service. The advertisement involves finance, investment, loans, sensitive personal data, or content flagged as potentially involving cybercrime. The advertisement specifically targets vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or other at-risk demographics. In such cases, platforms must conduct identity verification using government-issued identification documents and must confirm the accuracy, authenticity, and currency of these documents with the issuing government agencies. Alternatively, platforms may verify identity through an eligible digital identity verification and authentication system provider. Information Retention Platforms must retain specific information for each advertiser, including the name of the individual or juristic person and any representatives, government-issued identification documents such as ID cards, passports, or certificates of incorporation, and reachable contact information including
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 13, 2026
On January 9, 2026, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint with the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) against five individuals for unauthorized operation of a digital-asset dealer business under the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This precedent-setting case signals that the regulator is willing to pursue crypto enforcement against natural persons even in the absence of a licensed platform entity. Background and Implications The case follows the SEC’s October 2025 public warning about the use of iris-scanning technology in exchange for certain digital tokens. In its warning, the SEC cautioned that exchanging or trading these specific tokens with unlicensed service providers exposes users to heightened fraud, scam, and money laundering risks. Unlike prior regulatory enforcement matters, which involved platform-level administrative fines for operational or compliance failures, this case targets misconduct by individuals who may not be professional traders but openly advertised their willingness to buy these tokens from the public, opened individual over-the-counter (OTC) trade channels for these tokens, and facilitated off-exchange transactions in a manner resembling ordinary commercial dealing. This enforcement action establishes a clear precedent that natural persons engaging in public-facing digital-asset dealing may face criminal liability under Thai law, even without operating through a corporate or licensed platform structure. Outlook The alleged offenders may not settle this crime by payment of fines. Following the SEC’s referral, the ECD will undertake further investigation, after which prosecutors may review the case and proceed to court. The SEC has stated that it will cooperate fully with enforcement agencies throughout the criminal enforcement process.
Read More