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 24, 2022

Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission Reforms Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices

Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission issued new guidelines on unfair trade practices in a notification published in the Government Gazette on February 18, 2022, coming into effect the following day. The new guidelines repealed and replaced the commission’s previous ones, which had been in use since November 2, 2018.

As with the previous version, the new guidelines were issued under section 57 of the Trade Competition Act, B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA) which prohibits unfair trade practices that cause damage to other business operators. These new guidelines were formulated in response to new types of unfair trade practices that have arisen due to changing business models and other economic developments. In addition to recategorizing the conduct at issue, the new guidelines widen the scope of behaviors deemed unfair under the TCA.

The new guidelines include the following key elements:

  1. Explicit principles of free and fair trade

The new guidelines specify that business operators should observe free and fair trade and must refrain from causing damage to other business operators. While this is already one of the core underlying principles of the TCA, the new guidelines put this principle in writing.

2.  Additional examples of loss and damages

Allegations of unfair trade practices (i.e., violation of section 57 of the TCA) require proof of losses and damages by the affected party. In addition to economic losses (e.g., of revenue, market value, or manufacturing opportunities—which were already cited in the previous guidelines—the new guidelines also take into account loss of market share, of opportunities for selling and purchasing goods or services, and of opportunities for carrying out business with others, as well as increases in costs or expenses.

3.  Adjusted criteria for determining superior bargaining power
In general, business operators are considered to have superior bargaining power when a trade partner must significantly rely on that operator for a business transaction (i.e., purchase or sale of goods or services). The old guidelines stipulated two possible criteria for superior bargaining power: (1) the value of the business transaction is at least 30% of the revenue generated from the total purchase or sale of that trade partner, or (2) even if the value of the transaction is below 30%, the trade partners have no other choices or the switching costs are excessive. While the new guidelines maintain the first criteria, they refine the second one by introducing a minimum value of 10% for the business transaction. This means that if the value of a business transaction between business operators is below 10% of the total revenue, none of the business operators are considered to have superior bargaining power.

4.  Recategorized list of unfair conduct and new prohibited behaviors

The new guidelines refigure the list of activities fitting the TCA’s three broad categories of prohibited conduct, refine the wording of some items for clarity, and introduce several additional prohibited behaviors as follows:

  • Forcing another business operator, without justification, to purchase products or services unrelated to its ordinary course of business from a business operator that abuses its market power or exploits its superior bargaining power;
  • Forcing another business operator to sell or purchase products or services in an amount that is higher or lower than that operator’s needs or demands;
  • Forcing another business operator to achieve a sales target that is determined in an unfair manner; and
  • Any other abuse of market power and superior bargaining power, such as delaying payment for goods or services or refusing to pay fines for late payment of goods or services without justification.

A breach of the Trade Competition Commission’s guidelines can be a violation of section 57 of the TCA if damage can be proven by the affected party, with the penalty being a fine of up to 10% of total turnover for the year in which the offense is committed.

To avoid such a fine, business operators should review their business practices, contracts, and other arrangements with their trade partners to ensure compliance with the new guidelines, which have been in effect since February 19, 2022. Business and trade policies such as marketing campaigns or sales strategies that could adversely impact trade partners or other business operators should especially be avoided or undertaken with great caution.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 25, 2026
On September 22, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) opened a one-month public consultation period on proposed amendments to three key competition regulations, covering (1) the criteria for determining market dominance, (2) the definition of “monopoly” under Thailand’s premerger approval regime, and (3) the definition of a merger that may substantially lessen competition under Thailand’s postmerger notification regime. The public hearing period closes on October 21, 2026. The proposed changes could significantly affect merger filing obligations and the assessment of market dominance under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA). The scope of the consultation and the proposed changes are outlined below. Market Dominance Criteria The draft notification on market dominance criteria proposes changes to the tests for both single-firm dominance and collective dominance, which would be measured using concentration ratios, as follows: Single-firm dominance: The proposed changes would lower the market-share threshold from 50% to 33% and the sales-turnover threshold from THB 1 billion to THB 500 million for the preceding year. Collective dominance: The three-firm concentration ratio (CR3) currently being used would be replaced by a two-firm concentration ratio (CR2). Under the new regime, the two largest operators in a relevant market would be considered dominant if their combined market share reached at least 75% in the preceding year. However, any business operator with sales turnover below THB 500 million or a market share below 10% would be excluded from this assessment. In addition to static or numerical thresholds, the proposed notification introduces a dynamic threshold or alternative criteria for assessing dominance in markets that change rapidly, experience short-term fluctuations in demand or supply, or use technology as a platform for conducting business, such as digital markets. Premerger and Postmerger Filing Thresholds Under the TCA, a premerger filing is required if a merger transaction
September 22, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Shipping Law 2026 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed legal analysis of shipping laws, regulatory frameworks, and maritime dispute resolution across key maritime jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter follows a structured Q&A format, organized into critical sections covering key aspects of maritime law and practice, including: Marine casualties, collision liability, pollution regimes, salvage, and general average Marine cargo claims, statutory carrier obligations, liability limits, and misdeclaration of cargo Maritime passenger claims, personal injury liabilities, and consumer case procedures Vessel arrest, counter-security, provisional attachment, and maritime liens Evidence preservation, perpetuation procedures, and electronic document disclosure Court jurisdiction, specialized IP&IT litigation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Enforcement of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards under the New York Convention 1958 Offshore wind energy initiatives, regulatory permits, and cabotage restrictions Sector developments, including the Landbridge project and decarbonization trends The Thailand chapter, authored by Noppramart Thammateeradaycho and Panchaya Rattanaumnuaishai, examines these topics in detail, highlighting key statutory regimes such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), the Arrest of Ships Act, and the jurisdiction of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Shipping Law 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
September 18, 2026
In August 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade released a draft decree to replace Decree No. 35/2020/ND-CP detailing certain articles of the Competition Law (Decree 35). The key changes under the draft decree and their implications for M&A transactions in Vietnam are summarized below. Definition of “Management Body” Decree 35 uses the term “management body” (bộ phận điều hành) as one of the criteria to determine the group of affiliated enterprises for the purpose of merger filing. However, there is no definition of the term, leaving enterprises without a basis on which to apply it consistently. The draft decree introduces a statutory definition of “management body,” being a person or group of persons who (i) own more than 50% of charter capital or voting shares; (ii) hold ownership or use rights over more than 50% of an enterprise’s assets; (iii) are an enterprise manager under enterprise law; or (iv) have decision-making power over the enterprise’s resolutions, daily business operations, or business and investment plans. This helps enterprises better assess the scope of merger filing. Determination of Relevant Product Market Under Decree 35, the relevant product market is defined solely by reference to goods and services interchangeable in characteristics, intended use, and price without accommodating digital or zero-price products. The draft decree expands the relevant product market to include “products” (sản phẩm) in addition to traditional “goods and services,” which captures digital information products, AI products, and other novel offerings. Additionally, it adds “other relevant competitive factors” such as quality of products, goods, and services for determining the relevant product market, supplementing the existing factors of characteristics, intended use, and price. This addresses cases where price substitutability is not meaningful for certain consumers or users, i.e., zero-price products. Determination of Relevant Geographic Market Under Decree 35, only physical geographic
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,