The Trade Competition Commission (TCC) is preparing to introduce guidelines aimed at evaluating unfair trade practices and identifying actions that lead to monopolies or reduce competition within multi-sided platform businesses, particularly in the digital e-commerce sector.
This move is in response to concerns voiced by online vendors who claim that dominant e-commerce platforms have increasingly impacted their businesses. Merchants have reported issues such as platform mandates to use the platforms’ own logistics services, rising fees—especially commissions—and pressure to participate in specific marketing campaigns.
Visanu Vongsinsirikul, TCC secretary-general, told the Bangkok Post that the commission is currently conducting a public hearing on the new guidelines. Once finalized, the proposals will be submitted to the TCC board for approval before being enacted into law. The entire process is expected to conclude by October.
The guidelines are considered necessary due to the growing complexity and interconnectedness of online business transactions, which create network effects and significantly influence trade behaviors. Drafted by the TCC, these guidelines aim to promote fair and free competition.
The draft specifies that unfair non-price behaviors may include platform coercion of merchants to accept unreasonable conditions—such as being forced to use specific logistics providers or carriers instead of choosing their preferred options.
Price Practices
The draft defines behaviors that constitute monopolistic or anti-competitive practices regarding pricing. For instance, setting prices below the average total cost without valid justification is prohibited. Enforcing rate parity clauses—where sellers are required to maintain identical prices across all sales channels—and prohibiting sellers from offering lower prices on other platforms are also outlawed.
Any attempt by platforms to dictate specific prices to vendors, especially if penalties involve restricting vendors’ sales, is considered unfair. Collecting various fees or benefits without reasonable justification is similarly banned.
The draft highlights problematic scenarios such as excessive pricing and parallel pricing, where fees or expenses are set at similar rates to competitors in a way that might suggest collusion. Predatory pricing—charging fees below the average variable cost to oust competitors—is also addressed.
The regulation seeks to prevent price discrimination and the collection of fees or benefits at different rates from different merchants without valid reasons. Introducing new or undisclosed charges without prior notice is also prohibited.
Furthermore, the law aims to prevent actions—direct or indirect—that unfairly influence market prices through algorithms or other mechanisms, unless justified by economic, business, trade, or technological factors.
The criteria for judging unfair practices include actions that cannot be explained by legitimate business, economic, or technological progress, as outlined by the TCC.
Thanawat Malabuppha, CEO of Priceza, emphasized the need to support brands, merchants, logistics providers, and service firms to ensure platforms do not impose restrictive practices solely for their own benefit. He highlighted the excessive market power held by some platforms, which needs regulation.
Dhiraphol Suwanprateep, an adjunct law lecturer at Bangkok University, commented that the guidelines could benefit consumers by promoting competitive pricing, expanding product choices, increasing transparency, and fostering innovation within a fair market environment. These measures align with global best practices, such as the EU’s competition laws and the Digital Markets Act, which have improved consumer access to diverse and affordable online services.
He cautioned that enforcement might lead to short-term price increases, as stricter rules could reduce platform operational efficiency. Additionally, compliance costs might impact consumers, especially if enforcement is inconsistent or overly burdensome for smaller platforms. However, he suggested that a balanced enforcement approach—targeting major platforms with significant market power while allowing flexibility for smaller players—could mitigate these risks.