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 may result in a monopoly or market dominance, and

Vietnam is implementing and developing a broad package of regulatory reforms that could reshape how IP, data, digital platforms, and product authenticity are regulated and enforced. Several of the key measures have been led by the Ministry of Public Security in its legislative and administrative capacity, as part of a broader government effort. The core reform package consists of four key legal instruments: proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, a proposed new Data Security Law, a draft Decree on Product Identification, Authentication and Traceability, and the newly enacted Decree No. 330/2026/ND-CP. These instruments include rules on criminal enforcement, data security, electronic identification, product identification and traceability, administrative violations, and cybersecurity sanctions. Combined, these measures will affect copyright enforcement, industrial property rights, trade secrets, AI training data, product provenance, online takedowns, valuation of counterfeit goods and electronic evidence. It is worth noting that, in addition to strengthening criminal penalties for IP crimes, Vietnam’s emerging regulatory framework increasingly treats infringement, data misuse, product authentication, and platform-enabled violations as interconnected regulatory and enforcement challenges. For rights holders and foreign investors, this could mean stronger tools against counterfeiting and online infringement, but also more compliance obligations around data, traceability, AI, platform controls and government-facing reporting. Expansion of Criminal IP Enforcement Proposed amendments to Article 225 of the Criminal Code would expand criminal copyright exposure beyond reproduction and distribution to cover large-scale commercial public performance and online communication of works, phonograms and video recordings. This is important because piracy is increasingly about streaming, unauthorized communication, and platform access models rather than physical copying. Aggravated copyright infringement could be subject to up to 10 years in prison for individuals and fines of up to VND 6 billion (about USD 228,300) for commercial legal entities. The amended Article 226 would expand criminal industrial property liability beyond trademarks and geographical indications to

On September 15, 2026, Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) issued two notifications—one for life insurance and one for non-life insurance—amending the 2020 regulatory framework governing policy issuance and offering, agent and broker conduct, premium collection, and advertising. The amendments take effect on January 1, 2027. Electronic Policy Delivery and OIC Reporting Insurers must now deliver policies electronically by default, with printed copies required only where the policyholder opts out of electronic delivery. For life insurance, this requirement extends to coverage summaries and exclusion documents. Insurers must also electronically submit issued policies to the OIC immediately upon issuance. This is a significant new data-reporting obligation that requires system integration with the OIC’s platform. Risk Management, Sales Conduct, and License Misuse The notifications introduce several amendments and additional requirements in the areas of risk management, sales conduct, and license misuse: Internal risk management must now expressly cover advertising, policy offering, and sales agent information, including market conduct risk and reputational risk. Sales conducted through employees, agents, or brokers are subject to enhanced requirements, including verification of the seller’s identity and authority, disclosure of the purpose of contacting the customer, provision of complete and accurate policy information, customer assistance with application forms, and notification of the expected timing for policy delivery or insurer follow-up. For life insurance, customers must also be informed of their right to cancel the policy. For life insurance specifically, employees, agents, and brokers must submit insurance applications to the insurer at the earliest opportunity, and no later than the next business day. Using another person’s name or license, or allowing another person to use one’s own name or license, for the purpose of offering insurance for sale, listing in sales-related documents, or recording in the insurance policy is now expressly prohibited for both life and non-life insurance. Premium Collection and Refund Framework Insurers must prepare written premium

Many multinational companies are familiar with the concept of “time off in lieu” (TOIL), under which employees receive compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for additional hours worked. While TOIL is common in many jurisdictions, employers in Thailand should be cautious, as Thai labor law does not expressly recognize TOIL as a substitute for statutory overtime-related compensation. Under the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA), employees who work overtime or perform work on holidays are generally entitled to statutory overtime, holiday, or holiday overtime compensation, including: Overtime Pay: 1.5 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed beyond normal working hours on a regular working day. Holiday Pay: 1 or 2 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed during normal working hours on a holiday, depending on category of employee. Holiday Overtime Pay: 3 times the employee’s normal wage rate for overtime work performed on a holiday. Importantly, the LPA does not contain any provision expressly permitting employers to substitute overtime-related compensation with compensatory leave, as such compensation is treated as a payment obligation rather than additional time off. Why TOIL Can Be Risky in Thailand Thai labor law is protective in nature, and statutory entitlements to overtime, holiday, and holiday overtime pay are generally regarded as minimum employee rights. As a result, these rights cannot be waived, even with the employee’s consent. Therefore, an employer who grants TOIL instead of paying statutory overtime-related compensation may still be exposed to claims for unpaid amounts, notwithstanding that compensatory leave has already been provided. Thai courts have affirmed this principle, holding that employers remain liable for statutory payments for work performed beyond normal working hours even where substitute time off has been granted. Are There Any Exceptions? Certain categories of employees are exempt from overtime-related compensation, such as: Employees who have genuine authority to act on

Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of the claim against

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.

Thailand’s first-to-file trademark system has a serious vulnerability: it lacks both an explicit mechanism for refusing bad-faith registrations and any means of invalidating them in court after the five-year limitation period has expired. While brand owners worldwide confront trademark squatting, Thailand’s statutory silence stands out, particularly in light of AIPPI’s 2017 Resolution Q249, which recommended that every jurisdiction provide clear tools to address bad faith at all stages of the trademark lifecycle. Nearly a decade later, Thailand has yet to act. This article proposes a concrete reform blueprint, drawing on the legislative models of China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The Statutory Gap Under the Thai Trademark Act B.E. 2534, no provision expressly authorizes examiners to reject an application on grounds of bad faith. Section 8(10) addresses well-known marks but offers no relief where the targeted mark lacks well-known status. Practitioners have resorted to Section 8(9)—which bars marks “contrary to public order, morality, or public policy”—as a workaround. However, this provision was designed to address the characteristics of the mark itself, not the applicant’s intent. Thai Supreme Court decisions have split on whether it can reach bad-faith conduct, creating persistent legal uncertainty. The gap extends beyond examination. Civil actions to cancel a bad-faith registration must be brought within five years—a deadline that frequently expires before foreign brand owners discover the squatted mark. Cancellation through the Board of Trademarks remains available but is slow, costly, and subject to court appeal, leaving bad-faith registrations in force during protracted proceedings. The system effectively rewards squatters and penalizes legitimate owners. Lessons from International Best Practices Several major jurisdictions have already closed this gap. China’s 2019 amendment to Article 4 of the Trademark Law introduced an absolute ground for refusal: “bad faith trademark applications without intent to use shall be rejected.” Bad faith can now be raised

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 area is referenced for determining the