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

March 2, 2021

The Effects of Thailand’s Competition Law and Its Application to the Food Delivery Market

Informed Counsel

Thailand’s long-awaited new Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA) came into effect on October 5, 2017, and the legislation’s extensive reforms of both substantive and procedural rules from the preceding version of the law have been both effective and revolutionizing. Significantly, the TCA lays out an efficient structure for the Trade Competition Commission (TCC) and grants independence to its administrative office, the Office of Trade Competition Commission (OTCC). Consequently, enforcement of this law—which had been almost absent in the past 20 years—is picking up pace. This article will examine the ongoing developments under this law in recent years, and will highlight its current application by discussing some of the TCC’s latest guidelines.

TCC: A Developer-Regulator

Since its establishment in 2018, the TCC has proven that its role and responsibilities are beyond those of a conventional regulator and law enforcer. The OTCC, with the support of its ad hoc subcommittees, have been actively monitoring the conduct of business operators and the level of competition in various markets and sectors, and the commission is well recognized for its publicizing of the TCA and establishment of new regulations under the law. Through various channels and platforms, a series of regulations, reports on market conditions, press releases, rulings, and precautionary statements have been published, and the TCC’s spokesperson often appears in the media to educate the public. To streamline the exchange of information and collaboration, the TCC and the OTCC have entered into an MOU with six sectoral regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand, the Office of Insurance Commission, and others.

The TCC has also exercised its pre-emptive power to prevent suspicious trade practices and transactions. Prohibitive warnings have been issued against potential infringement, such as unfair trade practices by food delivery platform operators and a proposed merger by potentially market-dominating major hospitals.

The TCC has realized that promotion of compliance is equally important to enforcement. Besides regulations and notifications, which set forth rules and restrictions, the TCC has started to promulgate handbooks, general guidelines, and market-specific guidance, as summarized in the table below.

The TCC has the authority to rule on alleged violations and to approve or deny merger applications. All cases the TCC has received so far have been processed swiftly, and decisions—together with their reasoning—have been published with remarkable efficiency. The charts below illustrate statistics for the cases decided by the TCC during the 2019–2020 period. Notwithstanding the relatively low number of cases that resulted in penalties, it is notable that these penalties have been applied evenly and are far-reaching. The infringers on whom fines were imposed or cease-and-desist orders served include a large energy drink manufacturer, modern trade businesses, and a car supplier. Because of their reputations and the amount of the fines, these penalties have attracted much attention from the public and the media. Further public attention was garnered during the USD 10.6 billion acquisition of one large retailer by another Thai retail giant in late 2020 (which the TCC eventually approved with certain conditions), which put the TCC’s discretionary role in the spotlight and has become a landmark merger control case in Thailand.

Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices

The object of the unfair trade practices provision of the TCA is to prevent any trade practices that cause damage to other operators. This provision has an extensive reach and may prohibit trade practices that have become common in some industries. Over time, the TCC will fine-tune their approach by observing and studying specific markets or industries and actively seek out unfair trade practices or arrangements and suffering parties. To date, the TCC has found four specific industries in which the commission has deemed it necessary to intervene and regulate market conduct of one party in order to protect another mistreated party. As a result, the TCC has launched market-specific guidelines for modern trade, franchise business, fruit trading, and—most recently—food delivery. To demonstrate more clearly how the TCC can intervene, the following section will look at this latest guidance in detail.

Food Delivery Guidelines

The COVID-19 pandemic brought phenomenal growth to e-commerce trading and food delivery services via online platforms, on which restaurant operators have become more and more dependent. The growing market power of the platforms prompted the TCC to issue guidelines to control the platform operators’ conduct, particularly when it comes to their trade practices and contract terms and conditions for participating restaurants.

The Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices between Digital Platform Operators for Food Delivery and Restaurants were published in the Government Gazette on November 23, 2020, and took effect on December 23, 2020. The guidelines describe best-practice principles and indicate the arrangements, conditions, and restrictions that food delivery platform operators may or may not impose upon restaurants participating in their platform.

The main principle set forth in the TCC’s food delivery guidelines is that the business conduct and commercial conditions imposed by platform operators on restaurants must be fair, noncompulsory, and nondiscriminatory, and must not obstruct another party’s business operations. Furthermore, terms and conditions of the business arrangement should be written, clear, and justifiable.

The TCC’s guidance also contains the following list of conduct that could be deemed unfair under the TCA:

  1. Unfair charges, such as unjustified increases in commission fees or gross profit, discriminatory charging of different rates among similar restaurants, charging advertising fees or promotional expenses for no benefits in return, and unexpected charges or demands for remuneration or benefits.
  2. Setting trade conditions to impede the operations of competitors, such as prohibiting restaurants from participating in other food delivery platforms without justification.
  3. Unfairly exploiting superior bargaining power, such as by forcing restaurants to sell the same type of food at the same price in all sale channels without justification.
  4. Extending credit terms, terminating agreements, and excluding restaurants from the platform without justification.

The guidelines seem favorable to restaurant operators, who may now be able to avoid challenging these practices through potentially lengthy and costly legal proceedings. Instead, restaurateurs are given the right to file complaints with the TCC against food delivery platform operators that may have breached the guidelines. If found guilty, platform operators could incur a hefty fine—up to 10% of their last annual revenue—plus a cease-and-desist order from the TCC to bring the infringement to an end, or other remedial measures.

The TCC’s movements in this area exhort digital platform operators to review and reassess their agreements, business conduct, trade practices, and conditions or directions for restaurant operators. Platforms may also need to seek legal counsel to ensure that their planned actions will comply with the TCC’s guidance before they launch new marketing initiatives or modify existing terms and conditions, especially in relation to prices and fees for restaurant operators.

Conclusion

These guidelines for food delivery platforms are the first attempt by the TCC to regulate the e-commerce market, an industry that has developed rapidly in Thailand. The commission’s action here shows its intent to stay vigilant and ready to move on relevant emerging issues, and it signals that there could be further action on the conduct of e-commerce operators in Thailand if a need is seen. Overall, we can conclude that the revamped trade competition legal and regulatory environment in Thailand—starting with the updated TCA in 2017—has truly set in motion significant changes that aim to provide a fair and equitable field for doing business in Thailand.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 26, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed an updated Cambodia chapter to Foreign Investment Review 2026, a global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 25 jurisdictions around the world. Published and distributed by Lexology Panoramic, the guide is focused on law and policy regarding foreign investment oversight, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other notable concerns for foreign investors. The updated Cambodia chapter was prepared by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Nitikar Nith, associate. The chapter focuses most closely on the law and policy section, which explains the government’s policies and practices regarding foreign direct investment, the main investment laws and their scope, and the relevant authorities responsible for regulating mergers, acquisitions, and other business transactions. The chapter also brings up key recent developments, such as the prospect of Cambodia establishing a competition regulator. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Foreign Investment Review 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
January 26, 2026
Myanmar’s Private Security Services Law, enacted on February 18, 2025, together with its implementing Directive on Applications for a Private Security Services License or Permit issued on June 18, 2025, establishes the country’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for both commercial private security service providers and companies that employ in-house security personnel. The framework applies to both Myanmar and foreign entities. For foreign investors and multinational operators, the new regime introduces strict licensing requirements, local content rules, and various approvals that must be carefully considered as part of business planning and compliance processes. Regulatory Authority and Structure The governing authority under the Private Security Services Law is the Private Security Services Central Supervisory Committee, formed with the minister of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) as chairperson, the chief of the Myanmar Police Force as vice-chairperson, and members from other high-ranking officials from relevant ministries, such as Transport and Communications, Defense, Planning and Finance, Investment and Foreign Economic Relations, Legal Affairs, Immigration and Population, Labor, and Commerce. This Central Committee is the highest regulatory authority and has the power to adopt policies, approve or reject applications for licenses and permits, and decide appeals against administrative actions taken by Supervisory Committees, which operate under the Central Committee at the state and regional level. They are responsible for processing applications, verifying compliance with statutory requirements, submitting applications to the Central Committee with remarks, and issuing licenses and permits once approved. Supervisory Committees also monitor compliance by license or permit holders and impose administrative penalties for noncompliance, while the Central Committee exercises final decision-making authority. License Requirements for Security Service Providers To apply for a private security services license, companies must be registered under the Myanmar Companies Law. Foreign companies may also operate a private security services business in Myanmar, subject to compliance
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
January 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has imposed new restrictions on foreign-majority shareholding and land ownership for companies in certain promoted activities. The changes took effect on September 1, 2025, but were not published in the Government Gazette until December 30, 2025, under Notification of the Board of Investment No. Sor. 7/2568 on the Amendment to List of Activities Eligible for Investment Promotion under Notification of the Board of Investment No. 9/2565, dated July 22, 2025. Foreign Land Ownership Restrictions Generally, foreign land ownership is one of the privileges granted to BOI-promoted companies, allowing them to own land to engage in the promoted activities. However, with these new restrictions, the BOI will no longer grant land-ownership privileges to foreign-majority-owned companies that conduct business activities in the following categories: Rolling, drawing, casting, or forging of nonferrous metals (category 5.4.9) Manufacturing of ferrous metal products or ferrous metal parts (category 5.4.11.2) Manufacturing of nonferrous metal products and/or nonferrous metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.4) Manufacturing of other metal products, including other metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.5) Manufacture of chemical products for industry (category 6.2) Manufacture of plastic products for industrial goods and parts (category 6.4.1) These restrictions do not apply to existing BOI-promoted companies that have at least three projects granted promotion under the same juristic person during the past 15 years (2011–2025) with total investment of at least THB 5 billion, excluding the cost of land and working capital. Foreign Shareholding Restrictions For companies to be eligible for BOI promotion in three other categories of business activities, at least 51% of the company’s registered capital must be held by Thai individual shareholders, unless the BOI-promoted activity is located within a special border economic zone as designated by the BOI. These three categories are: Manufacture of bags made of