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​ 

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
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
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