TCCT Holds Public Hearing on Trade Competition Act Subordinate Regulations
The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT“) conducted a public hearing on several key implementation regulations issued under the Trade Competition Act, B.E. 2560 (“Trade Competition Act“) to evaluate their effectiveness and continued relevance. These regulations provide the operational framework for enforcing the Trade Competition Act, covering areas such as merger control, abuse of dominance, anti-competitive collusion, market definition, affiliated business relationships, and pre-ruling procedures.
The review aims to assess whether the regulations remain necessary, current, and consistent with evolving market conditions and legal standards. Key considerations include potential overlaps with other laws, unnecessary regulatory burdens, and alignment with international best practices. Public feedback will inform the eventual decisions on whether the regulations should be amended, repealed, or maintained as is.
The public hearing ended on 23 April 2025. Stakeholders from all sectors were invited by TCCT to contribute to this review and help shape the future of competition policy in Thailand.
This consultation coincided with ongoing discussions on proposed amendments to the Trade Competition Act. As part of this broader reform effort, TCCT will host the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD“) Competition Peer Review seminar on 2 May 2025 at The Athenee Hotel, Bangkok. The event will feature international experts, policymakers, and business leaders discussing OECD’s findings and recommendations, as well as broader themes including legislative reform, competition efficiency, quality of life, and business challenges in today’s regulatory environment.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update (page 23).
New Laws Specifically Targeting Foreign Digital Asset Platforms Take Effect
Two new laws specifically targeting foreign digital asset platforms took effect on 13 April 2025: (i) the Emergency Decree on Digital Asset Businesses (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025) (“2025 Digital Asset Decree“), and (ii) the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Cybercrimes (No. 2) B.E. 2568 (2025) (“2025 Cybercrime Decree“).
2025 Digital Asset Decree
Under the 2025 Digital Asset Decree, digital asset business operators outside Thailand that have any of the following characteristics are deemed to be providing services to persons in Thailand:
- have a digital platform displayed, in whole or in part, in the Thai language;
- have a digital platform registered by using a domain name with the extension “.th” or “.ไทย” or any other name that signifies Thailand or the Kingdom of Thailand, or use a domain name in the Thai language;
- require or allow service users to make payments in Thai baht, or accept payments through deposit accounts or electronic money accounts in Thailand;
- specify as a condition for facilitating digital asset trading transactions that Thai law shall be the governing law for digital asset trading transactions, or specify that legal cases be resolved in a Thai court;
- pay remuneration to providers of search engines for specifically facilitating the access to their services for users in Thailand;
- establish an office or entity, or hire personnel to support or assist users in Thailand; or
- have any other characteristic as prescribed by the Notification of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC“).
The enactment of this law is in response to the SEC’s concerns that foreign cryptocurrency exchanges are operating businesses in Thailand without the required licence, as evidenced by the fact that they have a Thai language function on their platform or conduct marketing activities in the Thai language. It is now explicitly provided in the law that SEC will use the “solicitation” basis in determining if digital asset business operators (such as cryptocurrency exchanges) which are located and operated from offshore without a local licence are deemed to be providing services to persons in Thailand illegally.
Under the current regulatory scheme, in order to obtain a digital asset business licence, the applicant must be a legal entity established under the Thai law. This means that foreign digital asset operators (such as cryptocurrency exchanges) cannot obtain a proper licence to lawfully offer services to Thai persons on an active solicitation basis unless they establish a local entity in Thailand. It will be interesting to see if SEC will relax this local entity requirement in the future.
2025 Cybercrime Decree
Additionally, pursuant to the 2025 Cybercrime Decree, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (“MDES“) is authorised to block websites and applications of digital asset business operators who operate their business in Thailand without the required licence under the law on digital asset businesses. This means that MDES may block access to the platforms of foreign digital asset business operators providing services to persons in Thailand in breach of the 2025 Digital Asset Decree.
New Regulation on Technology Crimes Takes Effect
On 12 April 2025, the Thai Government announced expanded enforcement powers of government authorities, as well as a range of new obligations for relevant business operators, in order to more effectively combat “Technology Crimes”, defined as an act or an attempt to commit an offence under the law on commission of offences relating to computer in order to defraud, extort or blackmail any person or in a manner likely to cause injury to any other person, or a commission of an offence of defrauding, extortion or blackmail using a computer system as an instrument.
The significant legislative update, called the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes (No. 2), B.E. 2568 (2025) (“Technology Crime Decree (No. 2)“), took effect on 13 April 2025, and amended the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes, B.E. 2566 (2023) (“Technology Crime Decree“). The amended provisions apply to a wide range of entities, including:
- Financial Institutions: Commercial banks and state financial institutions established under specific legislation, as defined under the law governing financial institution businesses;
- Business Operators: Entities regulated under the law governing payment system, as well as digital asset business operators under the law pertaining to digital asset businesses (as added by the Technology Crime Decree (No. 2)); and
- Mobile Network Operators, Other Telecommunications Service Providers, Other Relevant Service Providers and Social media service providers: While not explicitly defined in the Technology Crime Decree, these terms are broadly construed. In particular, “other relevant service providers” may include any provider whose services are connected to the commission of technology crime and may therefore be subject to compliance obligations or directives issued under the Technology Crime Decree.
The Technology Crime Decree (No. 2) empowers the Bank of Thailand (BOT), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), the NBTC Office, and the Electronic Transactions Commission (ETC) to prescribe “standards or measures for the prevention of technology crime“.
Notably, Financial Institutions, Business Operators, mobile network operators, other telecommunications service providers, other relevant service providers, and social media platform providers may be held responsible for damages arising from technology crime, unless they can prove that they have complied with the applicable standards or measures for the prevention of technology crime prescribed by the relevant regulator. Failure to comply may result in both corporate penalties and personal liability for responsible individuals, including the director, managing director, or any person responsible for the operation of the corporate.
It is also notable that the Technology Crime Decree (No. 2) has amended the definition of “Business Operators” to include digital asset business operators under the law pertaining to Digital Asset Businesses. As a result, the scope of the Technology Crime Decree, as amended, now extends to operators in the digital asset sector, and all references to “Business Operators” under the amended Technology Crime Decree are deemed to include digital asset business operators.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Foreign Business Act Investigation Sparked by Building Collapse Due to Earthquake
Following the earthquake that struck Thailand on 28 March 2025, a government building under construction – intended to house the new office of the State Audit Office – collapsed, triggering widespread public concern and immediate scrutiny. The incident has raised questions about the corporate ownership and control of one of the companies directly involved in the project: China Railway No.10 (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“CREC“).
The Department of Special Investigations (“DSI“) investigated the shareholding structure of CREC following suspicions that Thai nominees were used in breach of the nominee provisions of the Foreign Business Act (“FBA“), which means that the Thai shareholders were not genuine holders of a 51% stake but were used by foreign parties to main Thai nationality of the company. According to media report, a Chinese national who holds 49% of the shares in CREC was arrested on 19 April 2025 and charged with operating a business and using Thai nominees in breach of the FBA. Three Thai shareholders who hold 51% of the shares in CREC were charged with illegally acting as nominees after they surrendered to DSI on 21 April 2025.
One of DSI’s key lines of inquiry was whether the three Thai shareholders had the financial means to make their investment in CREC, which has a registered share capital of THB100 million. As has been seen in a number of investigations by both DSI and the Department of Business Development (DBD), evidence of payment of shares, and whether shareholders have the financial means to make such payment, are key elements in nominee-related investigations. Other important factors include funding sources, decision-making authority, and receipt of economic benefits.
This case continues an increasing trend of Thai government investigations into the alleged use of Thai nominees to circumvent foreign ownership restrictions under the FBA. On 23 April 2025, the Thai Cabinet approved in principle to revise the FBA on an urgent basis, assigning the Ministry of Commerce to explore how to amend in such a way as to shift from “protection” to “enhancing competitive potential”.
Note: A foreigner who carries on a business in breach of the FBA provisions may be sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum term of three years and/or a fine from between THB 100,000 to THB 1 million. A Thai national or juristic person who acts as a nominee for a foreigner may also be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years and/or a fine of between THB 100,000 to THB 1 million. Given the absence of court precedent in this area, it is difficult to provide a definitive list of the actions which evidence the existence of a “nominee”. However, recent media reports indicate a government policy of increased enforcement action in this area.
Investigation Efforts on Competition Issues Following Building Collapse Due to Earthquake
Following the earthquake that struck Thailand on 28 March 2025, a government building under construction – intended to house the new office of the State Audit Office – collapsed, triggering widespread public concern and immediate scrutiny. The incident has raised questions about construction standards, oversight, and potential irregularities in the procurement and contracting processes.
Preliminary investigations revealed that two companies were directly involved in the project: China Railway No.10 (Thailand) Co., Ltd. and Xin Ke Yuan Steel Co., Ltd. The latter is believed to have supplied key construction materials used in the building. Further inquiries uncovered a complex network of at least eight additional legal entities registered at the same address and linked by overlapping shareholders and directors.
In response, multiple government agencies have launched investigations into possible misconduct. A special inter-agency committee, chaired by the Minister of Commerce, is examining the broader corporate relationships, procurement history, and any potential violations of Thai law. The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT“), as part of this coordinated effort, is focusing specifically on competition-related concerns, including:
- bid rigging (collusion to influence the outcome of public tenders);
- below-cost pricing aimed at driving competitors out of the market; and
- margin squeeze practices that may disadvantage competitors in upstream or downstream markets.
TCCT has formally summoned both companies to provide information on and clarify their roles, with the aim of determining whether the conduct violates the Trade Competition Act, B.E. 2560. The case is being treated as high priority, given its potential implications on public safety, market fairness, and procurement integrity.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update (page 22).
US Tariffs Announced by the Trump Administration
On 2 April 2025, President Trump announced a baseline 10% tariff on imports from all countries. In addition to this baseline 10% tariff which took effect on 5 April 2025, an “individualised reciprocal higher tariff” was announced for those countries with which the United States (“US“) has the largest trade deficits, with the intention being that they take effect on 9 April 2025. Thailand was disappointed to find itself subject to a further 36%, one of the highest individualised reciprocal tariff rates announced by the Trump Administration, which reflects Thailand’s substantial trade surplus with the US.
On 9 April 2025, the Trump Administration announced suspension of the “individualised reciprocal higher tariff” rate for a period of 90 days, with the baseline tariff of 10% on imports from all countries into the US to continue until 7 July 2025. The intention of the 90-day “pause” is for impacted countries to directly engage with the Trump Administration to negotiate reduced rates. Thailand has not indicated any intention to impose reciprocal tariffs, in line with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economic ministers’ Joint Statement made on 10 April 2025.
Thai officials have discussed their intention to use the following five core principles in negotiations with the Trump Administration:
- Thailand’s commitment to maintain its mutual trade and economic partnership with the US in industries which will mutually benefit them, particularly the agricultural, food and technology industries;
- Thailand’s willingness to open new markets, lower import duties and remove non-tariff barriers for more products from the US;
- Increased imports of necessary products from the US to lower Thailand’s trade surplus;
- Increased scrutinisation of products and practices, such as the use of certificates of origin and transhipped goods, to prevent the avoidance of US tariffs by third countries channelling goods through Thailand; and
- Support for Thai investors to expand their investments in certain industries in the US, including the use of US materials and ingredients, and export of such products to other countries.
TCCT Decision on Unfair Practices in Digital Platforms for Transport Services
The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT“) has issued a decision regarding alleged unfair practices in the ride-hailing service market, specifically involving electric taxis and motorcycles. In response to complaints from two transport service providers against three ride-hailing companies operating digital platforms, TCCT concluded that the practices in question did not constitute unfair competition under the Trade Competition Act, B.E. 2560 (“Trade Competition Act“).
The complainants operate public taxi services on the digital platforms of the respondents, who are business operators in the ride-hailing service market. They alleged differences in treatment between traditional taxis using a meter, and drivers providing services through the electronic system. Such differences allegedly include differing service fees, fare rates and promotions, and service display orders.
Overall, TCCT dismissed the case, as it found that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims that the respondents had engaged in unfair competition practices under sections 50 and 57 of the Trade Competition Act. TCCT stated that the differences in treatment did not constitute unfair pricing or business obstruction, and the respondents’ practices were in line with the relevant transport regulations. It was also found that the practices did not unfairly prejudice any specific group of drivers, and did not make it impossible for the complainants to compete.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update (page 23).
Thailand's Implementation of New "Copayment" Clauses in Health Insurance Policies Starting from 20 March 2025 –What You Need to Know
With effect from 20 March 2025, insurance companies will be able to introduce a copayment clause that will apply to health insurance policy renewals and new policies.
The insurance industry in Thailand is undergoing this significant transformation in March 2025 due to rising health insurance premiums, medical inflation, and unnecessary medical expenses. The copayment policy was developed by Thailand’s Office of Insurance Commission (“OIC“) in collaboration with the insurance sector, under the New Health Standard. This was pursuant to (i) OIC Order No. 14/2564 RE: Criteria for Approval of Standard Forms and Wording of Health Insurance Riders for Life Insurance Companies, and (ii) OIC Order No. 15/2564 RE: Criteria for Approval of Standard Forms and Wording of Individual Health Insurance Policies for Non-Life Insurance Companies (collectively, “OIC Orders“), which have been in effect since November 2021.
To control rising medical costs and reduce unnecessary claims that impact premium rates, the OIC Orders have introduced the development of alternative health insurance products to manage healthcare expenses while safeguarding the rights of the insured. The key measures include:
- developing alternative health insurance products to reduce unnecessary medical expenses; and
- encouraging self-medication for minor illnesses or obtaining prescriptions to purchase medicine directly from pharmacies.
The copayment policy is a targeted solution designed to address these concerns. This claims model aims to slow down premium increases and ensure the long-term sustainability of voluntary health insurance.
For more information, click here to read the full Legal Update.
Philippines and Thailand Ink MOU on Joint Competition Law Enforcement
The Philippine Competition Commission (“PCC“) and the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT“) signed a memorandum of understanding (“MOU“) to bolster cross-border collaboration in competition law enforcement.
The MOU aims to foster fair and competitive markets in both countries by establishing a framework for partnership in areas including information sharing, notification of enforcement activities, coordination of investigations of mutual interest, and technical collaboration through initiatives such as personnel exchanges and joint training.
The MOU was signed by PCC Chairperson Michael Aguinaldo and TCCT Chairperson Maitree Sutapakul on 4 February 2025 in the Philippines.
Please note that whilst the information in this Update is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as a substitute for specific professional advice
