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 7, 2026

Thailand Seeks Input on Competition Guidelines for Digital Platforms, Modern Trade, and On-Demand Delivery

Subscribe to Updates

On July 31, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) launched a one-month public consultation period on proposed regulatory guidelines for competition in three business segments: (1) digital platforms; (2) modern trade and credit terms; and (3) ride-hailing and on-demand delivery, including food delivery and mart/quick commerce. At the same time, the TCCT released a market report on ride hailing and on-demand delivery that is likely to influence the guidelines and their interpretation and enforcement.

The consultation runs until August 31, 2026. Stakeholders have a limited window to submit practical, evidence-based input that may shape the next phase of Thailand’s regulatory framework for competition.

Scope of the Consultation

The public consultation targets updating existing guidance in three business sectors that have experienced transformative growth and structural change:

  • Digital platforms: The TCCT has actively monitored this sector in recent years and has coordinated with other regulators, primarily the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) and the Ministry of Commerce. In March 2026 the TCCT’s Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses took effect, and in July the TCCT established a digital platform subcommittee to regulate and prevent unfair trade practices in digital platform businesses. This activity followed a TCCT market report on e-marketplace businesses in September 2025.
  • Modern trade and credit terms: This sector was the focus of the TCCT’s 2019 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Wholesale and Retail Operators and Manufacturers or Suppliers (widely known as the “Modern Trade Guidelines”) , as well as its 2021 Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices regarding the Credit Terms under which Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Sell Products or Services to a Purchaser (also known as the “Credit Term Guidelines”), which were amended the following year.
  • Ride-hailing and on-demand delivery (including food delivery and quick commerce): The TCCT published the Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Digital Platform Operators for Food Delivery and Restaurants (or the “Food Delivery Guidelines”)in December 2020, but no specific guidelines currently exist for ride-hailing and mart/quick commerce.

The TCCT’s decision to revise existing guidelines follows field research across multiple provinces and in-depth market structure analysis. The findings of that research suggest that current guidelines may not fully capture fast-changing trading practices, platform ecosystems, and sector-specific market dynamics. The consultation is therefore an opportunity for operators to explain how their markets work in practice, identify where regulatory assumptions may not reflect commercial realities, and help the TCCT design rules that are targeted, workable, and proportionate.

TCCT’s Market Report on Ride-Hailing and On-Demand Delivery

Alongside the call for public consultation, the TCCT has released a detailed market report for the ride-hailing and on-demand delivery sectors, conducted by its Market Structure and Business Systems Division.

In the ride-hailing sector, a single platform held approximately 70 percent market share in 2024, but by 2026 the market had evolved into a behavioral duopoly between two leading platforms holding around 45–50 percent and 45 percent, respectively, with smaller players holding minimal shares. The rapid ascent of the challenger platform resulted from aggressive pricing strategies, including waiving commission fees for drivers during its market-entry phase. A newer entrant that launched in early 2024 introduced a zero-commission model charging drivers a flat THB 20 platform fee per trip.

The food delivery market has experienced more dramatic concentration. The market, valued at approximately THB 100 billion over 2022–2025, underwent a major structural shift in May 2025 when a pioneering operator with more than 19 percent market share announced its permanent withdrawal from Thailand due to sustained losses. At the same time, a domestic financial group completed the sale of its loss-making food delivery platform to a consortium of local investors. These exits left two leading food delivery platforms controlling a combined 80–90 percent of transaction volume in 2026, with a third operator holding approximately 10 percent as a supporting player within a broader regional e-commerce group.

The report identifies systemic entry barriers that reinforce market concentration. These include:

  • Indirect network effects that create a “chicken-and-egg problem” whereby new platforms cannot attract drivers or delivery riders without passengers or customers, and vice versa, forcing entrants to subsidize both sides simultaneously at enormous cost.
  • Multihoming barriers that impose hidden costs on drivers wishing to work across multiple platforms—including uniforms, insulated delivery bags, high-performance smartphones, fast internet packages, and advance deposits—compounded by loyalty programs designed to incentivize single-platform commitment.
  • Data and ecosystem advantages that enable incumbents to leverage their market power and achieve economies of scope, including superior algorithmic pricing, demand forecasting, and integrated financial services such as digital wallets and buy-now-pay-later schemes that create switching costs and lock in users.

The report also documents several categories of potentially anticompetitive conduct. Pricing behaviors include:

  • Surge pricing through opaque algorithms that may discriminate unfairly against consumers in urgent need.
  • Predatory pricing or pricing below cost to eliminate smaller competitors, followed by raising prices and commission rates once market dominance is achieved (recoupment).
  • Unfair commission fees imposed on small merchants with high platform dependency, coupled with unilateral changes to rider compensation without advance notice.

Nonprice conduct includes:

  • Price parity clauses that prohibit restaurants from offering lower prices on their own websites or competing platforms.
  • Self-preferencing through algorithm manipulation to promote in-house food preparation or captive logistics services.
  • Exclusivity arrangements that coerce merchants or riders to avoid competitors in exchange for preferential commission rates or marketing tools.

Next Steps for Business Operators

The public consultation marks a significant shift toward more responsive competition law enforcement in Thailand’s digital platform economy. The TCCT is expected to play a more active role through heightened ex-ante oversight and sector-specific guidance, and it has signaled its intention to align enforcement more closely with international competition policy trends—including the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), foreign competition authority enforcement experience, and Thailand’s broader policy direction toward OECD accession. The outcome of this consultation, in conjunction with the TCCT’s market studies, will likely shape how Thailand’s competition rules are interpreted and applied across these sectors.

Participation in the consultation is thus important not only to comment on existing and future guidelines but also to influence the market study assumptions that may underpin future law reform and enforcement priorities. This is a valuable opportunity to help the TCCT understand the nature of participants’ businesses, the commercial justification for existing practices, and the differences between Thai market conditions and foreign market dynamics and regulatory models.

Business operators should act promptly to:

  1. Identify which aspects of the consultation and market study may affect their business model, commercial terms, data practices, pricing policies, commission structures, merchant or supplier arrangements, and platform governance.
  2. Prepare factual evidence and practical examples showing how the relevant markets operate in Thailand.
  3. Submit clear, well-supported comments before the consultation closes on August 31, 2026.

To encourage this process, Tilleke & Gibbins is helping operators assess the consultation’s impact and develop practical advocacy positions. We can also lead industry-wide discussions and engagements with the TCCT and other regulators so that the consultation reflects insightful market practices and a balanced regulatory approach.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

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 3, 2025
On September 26, 2025, the Contract Committee under Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board issued a regulation that aims to standardize contracts and enhance consumer protection within the beauty and wellness industry. The Notification on Prescribing the Beauty Service Business as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), which takes effect on January 24, 2026, requires business operators to use a prescribed standard contract in Thai and adhere to strict mandatory provisions and prohibitions. These regulations apply to operators across all in-person and online service channels, including via digital platforms. “Beauty services business” is defined as the provision of services under an agreement allowing consumers to receive a series of treatments, either over a set number of sessions or within a set period. This includes massage, spa, other methods for cleanliness, beauty, or care of facial or body skin, and weight control and body shaping—including services offered electronically. The law excludes surgery, liposuction, and medical treatments performed by licensed practitioners. The notification establishes the following key requirements: Mandatory contract and formatting. All contracts with consumers must use the standard contract form, in Thai, with clear, readable text (minimum font size of 2 millimeters, no more than 11 characters per inch), and include all essential terms from the annexed form. Contract execution. Contracts must be made in duplicate, with one copy given to the consumer at signing. For agreements concluded through electronic channels, the process must comply with the Electronic Transactions Act and use the same required terms. Digital platforms. Business operators who provide services facilitated through a digital platform as an intermediary are ultimately responsible for ensuring the consumer receives a compliant contract. Prohibited clauses. The law prohibits clauses that limit or exclude liability for damages to life, body, health, mind, or property resulting from breach of contract or a wrongful act;
Read More
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts
Read More
September 2, 2025
Thailand’s Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has initiated a sweeping regulatory review of licensed direct sale and direct marketing businesses in Thailand and is in the process of notifying business operators to submit their annual business report and financial statement to the OCPB as part of their postlicensing obligations. This move marks a significant escalation in the government’s efforts to enforce compliance and transparency in the sector, which has faced growing scrutiny in recent years. Key Regulatory Considerations All businesses holding a direct sales or direct marketing license are required to submit their audited financial statement along with their business operation report to the OCPB within 60 days from the end of their fiscal year (extendable for up to 30 days by request, if necessary). The OCPB is currently conducting license audits as part of its enforcement duties. The office aims to complete audits for at least 90% of the 2,983 registered businesses that have obtained their license since 2022. This includes a review of the business conduct of the license holder. New license applications are also under scrutiny. Applicants are currently being subjected to background checks, and the OCPB has signaled a more rigorous vetting process moving forward. Impact of Noncompliance Failure to comply with these reporting obligations may result in escalating enforcement actions, including: Official notice to rectify noncompliance within a specified timeframe. Revocation of business registration, if the operator fails to respond. Revocation of business registration could result in a five-year prohibition on reapplying for a direct sales or direct marketing license following the revocation. The OCPB has already initiated outreach efforts, including SMS and email notifications, and has hosted seminars to raise awareness of these obligations. These measures are part of a broader initiative to enhance transparency and consumer trust in the sector. Businesses operating in the direct selling and
Read More