Companies selling through e-commerce platforms in Thailand entered a new regulatory environment in March 2026. The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published guidelines for e-commerce platforms via the Royal Gazette. Understanding the statutory provisions of the Trade Competition Act that underpin these guidelines is essential for any business involved in Thailand’s digital marketplace. This article examines the Competition Act provisions, the legal character of the TCCT Guidelines, six regulated conduct categories, and the Draft Platform Economy Act (PEA) being developed by ETDA.
← Vol. 3: Reading Thailand’s Draft AI Law
Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) — Basic Structure
Purpose and Scope
The Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 ensures fair market competition in Thailand. Enacted in 2017, it replaced the 1999 Act and introduced updated rules for the digital economy.
Supervisory authority: TCCT (Trade Competition Commission of Thailand)
Dominant Position (Sections 50–51)
Section 50 defines “dominant position.”
50% threshold: A single operator with market share of 50% or more and annual revenue of 1 billion baht or more in a specific market is deemed to hold a dominant position.
75% threshold: Three or fewer operators collectively holding 75% or more market share with combined annual revenue of 1 billion baht or more are all deemed dominant.
Given that Shopee, Lazada, and TikTok Shop collectively dominate Thailand’s e-commerce market, Section 51 (collective dominant position of three or fewer operators) is precisely the provision most likely to apply to them.
Prohibition on Unfair Trade Practices (Sections 57–58)
Section 57 prohibits “unfair trade practices” by dominant-position operators, including:
- Setting or modifying trade conditions unfairly
- Imposing unjustified conditions on trading partners
- Unreasonably restricting trading partners’ choice of suppliers or buyers
- Predatory pricing
- Unreasonable refusal to deal
Section 58 (Extraterritorial Application): The Trade Competition Act applies to conduct occurring outside Thailand that affects competition in the Thai market. This brings e-commerce platforms headquartered in Singapore or elsewhere within scope if their practices affect Thai market competition.
Legal Character of the TCCT Guidelines
Guidelines Are Not a Law — But They Carry Weight
The TCCT Guidelines published in March 2026 are not a standalone statute with independent binding force. As a soft-law instrument, they represent TCCT’s interpretation and enforcement policy under the Trade Competition Act.
However, conduct violating the Guidelines may constitute “unfair trade practices” or “abuse of dominant position” under Sections 57–58 of the Trade Competition Act, providing the legal basis for sanctions. In TCCT’s enforcement practice, guideline violations are expected to function as indicators of presumptive unlawfulness.
This is structurally similar to the European Commission’s horizontal guidelines effectively operating as authoritative interpretive standards, despite not having direct binding force as regulations.
Six Regulated Conduct Categories — Statutory Basis
① Fee and Cost Transparency Obligation
Statutory basis: Section 57 (unfair modification of trade conditions without disclosure)
Platforms must clearly specify the breakdown of fees and charges imposed on sellers. Unilateral fee increases or opaque additional charges may constitute “unfair modification of trade conditions.”
② Prohibition on Mandatory Logistics Designation
Statutory basis: Section 57 (unreasonably restricting trading partners’ choice of suppliers)
Requiring sellers to use only platform-affiliated logistics providers restricts their freedom to choose trading partners. This parallels Japan’s Subcontracting Act, which prohibits principals from unilaterally dictating suppliers and conditions.
③ Limitation on Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Clauses
Statutory basis: Section 57 (imposition of unreasonably competition-restricting conditions)
Retail MFN clauses — requiring sellers not to offer lower prices on other platforms — can constitute horizontally anti-competitive conduct. The European Commission took corrective action against Amazon Marketplace’s retail MFN under EU competition law, providing a notable precedent.
④ Prohibition on Algorithm Manipulation and Search Ranking Distortion
Statutory basis: Section 57 (obtaining competitive advantage through unfair methods)
Manipulating ranking algorithms to favor a platform’s own direct products or specific sellers raises transparency concerns. This mirrors EU DMA Article 6(5), which prohibits gatekeepers from engaging in self-preferencing.
⑤ Prohibition on Arbitrary Account Suspension or Removal
Statutory basis: Section 57 (unreasonable refusal to deal)
Unilaterally suspending or deleting a seller’s account without legitimate justification may constitute an “unreasonable refusal to deal.” The Guidelines are expected to require advance notice to sellers and the availability of an appeals process.
⑥ Data Portability (Sellers’ Right to Access Transaction Data)
Statutory basis: Section 57 (data hoarding that substantially impedes competition)
The right of sellers to access and transfer their own sales and customer data to other platforms or proprietary systems. This corresponds to EU DMA Article 6(10)‘s data portability obligations.
The “Superior Bargaining Power” Concept in Thai Law
Japan’s Subcontracting Act and Specified Digital Platform Transparency Act center on the concept of “abuse of superior bargaining position.” Thailand’s Trade Competition Act uses “dominant position,” but TCCT’s interpretation increasingly considers the economic dependency of sellers on platforms, recognizing that market share thresholds alone may not capture the full regulatory concern.
The TCCT Guidelines are understood to potentially target platforms that fall below the 50% market share threshold but on which sellers are nonetheless economically dependent — recognizing that effective regulatory power stems from sellers’ practical inability to exit the platform relationship.
Draft Platform Economy Act (PEA)
ETDA’s Draft Platform Economy Act (PEA) is a separate bill from the TCCT Guidelines, planned to introduce EU DSA-style platform governance.
Key Elements of the Draft PEA
① Notice and Takedown Procedure Platforms that receive reports of illegal content or fraudulent products will face a legal obligation to remove or take down such content within a prescribed period.
② Disclosure of Ranking and Recommendation Systems An obligation to disclose to sellers and consumers the main parameters affecting rankings — including whether paid ranking upgrades exist and how relevance metrics are defined. Corresponds to EU DMA Article 7 and DSA Article 27.
③ Trusted Flaggers System Government agencies, consumer protection bodies, and research institutions are designated as “trusted flaggers” whose reports platforms must prioritize for review.
④ Transparency Reporting Obligation Large-scale platforms will be required to publish annual transparency reports covering content moderation status, removal volumes, and government disclosure requests.
Comparison: PEA, EU DSA/DMA, and Japan’s Transparency Act
| Element | Thailand PEA (Draft) | EU DSA | Japan Transparency Act |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice and takedown | Yes (draft) | Yes (Arts. 16–17) | No (voluntary) |
| Ranking transparency | Yes (draft) | Yes (Art. 27) | Yes (mandatory) |
| Trusted flaggers | Yes (draft) | Yes (Art. 22) | No |
| Transparency reporting | Yes (draft) | Yes (Arts. 24–42) | Yes (mandatory) |
| Applicability threshold | Under development | 45M+ monthly users | Annual GMV > 300B JPY |
Penalty Structure
Under the Trade Competition Act:
Administrative penalties: TCCT can impose a fine of up to 10% of annual revenue upon finding a violation.
Criminal penalties: Sections 80+: failure to comply with TCCT orders → up to 2 years’ imprisonment + fine (or both)
Civil liability: Sellers or consumers harmed by platform violations may claim damages.
Practical Implications for Japanese E-Commerce Sellers
The direct compliance burden falls on platform operators. However, Japanese SMEs selling on Shopee, Lazada, or TikTok Shop should note:
- Record-keeping for fees: Retain records of fee change notifications and fee breakdowns. These may be needed as evidence.
- Documenting logistics coercion: If a platform requires use of specific logistics providers, maintain records.
- Review MFN clauses in seller agreements: Platform contracts containing MFN clauses may carry competition law risk.
- Prepare for account suspension: Familiarize yourself with the appeals process and maintain backups of transaction data.
Related Articles
- Thailand’s New E-Commerce Regulations: Platform Fees and Logistics Monopolies
- ← Vol. 3: Reading Thailand’s Draft AI Law
- Vol. 5: Thailand’s Cyber Laws Explained →
Next in the Series
Volume 5 (March 26, 2026): Thailand’s two cyber laws — the Cybersecurity Act (CII obligations), the Computer Crime Act (unauthorized access, false information penalties), and the Royal Decree on Technology Crime Prevention (SNS platform obligations and financial institution reporting duties).
This article is for general informational purposes about Thailand’s legal system and does not constitute legal advice under Thai law. For specific matters, please consult a Thai-qualified legal professional. Our firm works in collaboration with JTJB International Lawyers’ Thai-qualified attorneys.