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

February 8, 2023

Thailand’s Competition Law and Regulations: Background and Outlook for 2023

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand has a robust legal framework for competition, with laws and regulations in place to prevent anticompetitive conduct and market concentration and to promote fair competition. However, as the business environment in the country continues to evolve, it is important for companies operating in Thailand to stay informed about the latest developments in competition laws and regulations.

Generally, Thailand’s competition regime is based on the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (the TCA) and its implementing regulations, except for certain industries which are governed by sector-specific competition regulations. The TCA is designed to promote free and fair competition by suppressing anticompetitive behaviors.

In this article, we will examine what businesses can expect in the coming year, and what they need to be aware of in order to stay compliant.

A Maturing Regulatory Structure

The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) is the agency responsible for enforcing competition laws and regulations in Thailand. The TCCT has the authority to oversee the market structure, act to maintain competitiveness in various industries, investigate misconduct, and take action against companies that engage in anticompetitive practices, such as abuse of market dominance, cartels, and unfair trade practices. It also has discretionary power to consider applications for a merger of two or more businesses that may cause monopoly or market dominance.

While the TCA and the TCCT had limited success in the decades after the original TCA’s enactment in 1999, a new TCA in 2017 made several significant changes to the previous version of the law. The 2017 TCA guarantees the independence of the TCCT from political and business interventions. It also introduces administrative penalties for less-serious offenses, including non-hardcore cartels, unfair trade practices, and neglect of merger filing duties.

Since then, the TCCT has been more active in its issuance of subordinate regulations to optimize the functionality of TCA provisions. A number of business-specific guidelines adopted from time to time address competition concerns in certain business sectors, such as modern trade, franchises, and food delivery services. The TCCT has also issued rules that purchasers must follow when setting credit terms for SMEs (small and medium enterprises).

The level of enforcement has also escalated, evidenced by more than 60 cases determined and concluded during 2019–2021—mostly regarding merger filings and unfair trade practices. In recent years, the TCCT has had oversight of several high-profile mergers, issuing remedies and closely keeping track of the companies’ business conduct to ensure compliance with fair trade and competition requirements. The administrative office of the TCCT has also accomplished the first proactive investigation procedures involving unannounced inspections, commonly known in some jurisdictions as “dawn raids,” conducted at the accused’s premises to obtain useful evidence for cartel misconduct.

TCCT’s academic role has also been well recognized. The TCCT has conducted market studies of many emerging industries, such as e-commerce and marketplace platforms, to understand business practices and identify potential anticompetitive behaviors. The TCCT also acknowledges that the TCA should not stop evolving in today’s complex economy. In collaboration with the Thailand Development Research Institute, the TCCT studied whether and how to improve the TCA and its enforceability, resulting in the proposal of significant amendments to the TCA.

The regulatory structure of Thailand’s competition regime has matured a great deal in the past five years. This increased reliability is likely to continue in 2023 as the TCCT looks to deal with concerns about today’s market conditions.

TCCT and Emerging Issues

One of the key areas of focus for the TCCT in the coming year will be the digital economy. With the rapid growth of e-commerce and online platforms, the TCCT will be closely monitoring the growing market power of these operators to ensure that competition is fair and that consumers’ selection of goods and services is not manipulated. This is particularly important as the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to what the Thai government has called the “platform economy.” Recognizing that some plaftform operators’ conduct and trade conditions could damage competitors and trade partners, or restrict consumers’ choices, the TCCT set out to develop a new set of regulations and strategies to address these competition concerns. In this regard, the TCCT may adopt new legislation modeled on the Digital Markets Act of the European Union to more efficiently tackle anticompetitive conduct by digital marketplaces and online gatekeepers.

One of the TCCT’s missions in the year ahead will be to revitalize its existing regulations. The TCCT is prepared to raise the threshold for determining whether a company is in a position of market dominance, in light of the country’s economic growth and heightened inflation. Another area of focus is amendments to enhance the clarity of merger control rules and to extend the scope of control to certain types of mergers such as a full-function joint ventures, which are not yet clearly regulated under the current rules.

In terms of enforcement mechanisms, the TCCT is studying the possibility of implementing a leniency program that would grant immunity to whistleblowers who expose collusive arrangements. This leniency program would be a highly useful instrument for the TCCT in detecting cartels, similar to the success of leniency policies in exposing collusion in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and other jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Overall, businesses operating in Thailand can expect the TCCT to continue its efforts to promote fair competition and to intensify the level of enforcement in the coming year, with a particular focus on the digital economy and merger control. Companies should stay informed about the latest developments in competition laws and regulations and seek legal advice when necessary to ensure compliance. While competition is just one of the many areas of compliance that businesses have to uphold, enlisting outside assistance in maintaining a healthy and resilient presence in the market can greatly ease the burden.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More