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 The new guidelines repealed and replaced the commission’s previous ones, which had been in use since November 2, 2018.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​ 

July 8, 2026
On July 7, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) issued a press release announcing the establishment of two new subcommittees designed to intensify oversight of digital platforms and modern trade businesses. The formation of the digital platform subcommittee marks a significant escalation in competition enforcement following the TCCT’s Guidelines on Multi-Sided Platforms and E-Commerce Businesses, which took effect on March 25, 2026. Platform operators, sellers, and related service providers should expect heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential investigations into practices already flagged under the March guidelines. Two Dedicated Enforcement Bodies The first new body is the digital platform subcommittee—formally the Subcommittee on Supervision, Monitoring, and Prevention of Trade Conduct in Digital Platform Business. It is tasked with driving intensive oversight of digital platform businesses. It will coordinate with government agencies, the private sector, business operators, and other relevant stakeholders to supervise and prevent trade conduct that may affect competition, and to promote free and fair competition in the digital platform sector. The subcommittee will be composed of TCCT members and representatives from the Department of Internal Trade. The second body—the Subcommittee on Determining Guidelines and Action Plans Concerning Competition Conditions in Modern Wholesale and Retail Business—will study, analyze, and monitor market structure in modern wholesale and retail businesses, compile databases to analyze retail business concentration, assess impacts on small-scale operators, and propose supervisory measures for the retail sector. TCCT members will serve on the subcommittee alongside experts from government and private organizations, including the Office of Industrial Economics, the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion, the Thai SME Federation, and the Thai SME Council. Operational Impact for Industry Participants These subcommittees provide the TCCT with a focused mechanism to investigate various trade practices deemed unfair, and the TCCT has authority under the Trade Competition Act to issue cease-and-desist
May 22, 2026
Thailand recently concluded the latest round of high-level trade discussions with its US trade counterparts. In addition to addressing concerns over claimed human rights abuses, forced labor, and the current trade imbalance with the US, one critical area of focus was US allegations of transshipment in Thailand’s import-export sector. Transshipment is the practice of routing goods through a third country to circumvent duties or tariffs on goods exported to the receiving country. Specifically, the US alleges that many Thai exporters declare a Thai origin for goods to qualify for preferential duties or exemptions without meeting the legal standards for establishing Thai product origin—an act that it claims masks the goods’ true origin. This is a particular matter of concern for US authorities, since transshipment is perceived to be a means by which Thai origin is claimed for many Chinese goods exported abroad. This perception affects a wide range of otherwise legitimate Thai-origin goods. The Thai trade delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Suphajee Suthumpun, met with counterparts from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on May 3–6. A subsequent team of Thai trade representatives, led by the Thai Ministry of Commerce vice minister, met with the USTR on May 13–14. These discussions directly impact the trade enforcement environment in Thailand, potentially affecting numerous business operators involved in the manufacture, import, or export of goods and components. Thailand’s position is that it strictly adheres to and enforces the legal standards for determining qualifying origin and that allegations of transshipment are largely unjustified. Nonetheless, it has agreed to increase its focus on trade compliance and enforcement in Thailand in return for commitments on reciprocal trade benefits with the US, including consideration of tariff exemptions on certain critical Thai imports into the US. Notable Outcomes There
May 8, 2026
The global trade environment for Thai exporters in 2026 has shifted significantly. Recent enforcement developments in both the United States and the European Union show a clear shift in trade policy: regulators are no longer focused solely on tariff levels, but also on whether products genuinely originate where exporters claim they do. Adding to this complexity, the US Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision striking down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs has upended the legal basis for a major pillar of US tariff policy, creating significant legal and commercial uncertainty for exporters worldwide, including in Thailand. For Thai companies integrated into regional supply chains, this change carries material implications. Although the IEEPA-based US reciprocal tariffs have been struck down, intensified circumvention enforcement continues under separate legal authorities, and the administration has signaled its intent to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutory frameworks, while EU authorities are using anti-circumvention investigations where trade patterns shift. In both jurisdictions, the decisive issue is whether manufacturing in Thailand constitutes substantial transformation under applicable rules of origin. Such origin determinations increasingly drive duty exposure, audit risk and commercial disputes. In 2026, the ability to defend a product’s Thai origin is not merely a procedural step, it is central to preserving market access in the US and EU. Impact Of US Circumvention Enforcement and an Uncertain Tariff Landscape Following the 2025 Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, Thailand saw a shift in its tariff relationship with the US. A substantial range of Thai-origin goods were subject to a 19% reciprocal tariff under the IEEPA. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the use of IEEPA for tariffs has removed the legal basis for that rate. The Administration has indicated it intends to pursue replacement tariffs under other statutory authorities,
April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions