The Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA) is the legal framework for addressing cartel conduct and related implications in Thailand. This Act is governed primarily by Sections 54 and 55.

The submission of bids to government agencies is regulated by the Act on Offences Relating to the Submission of Bids to Government Agencies B.E. 2542 (1999) (ORSBGA). Enforcement of this legislation falls within the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Section 4 of the ORSBGA prohibits individuals from conspiring to manipulate bidding processes in a manner that unfairly benefits a specific person or entity in securing government contracts. This includes actions such as avoiding fair price competition, blocking alternative offers, or exploiting government agencies in ways that deviate from normal business practices. The Act also forbids encouraging others to engage in this prohibited conduct. Violations are subject to both imprisonment and fines.

The public enforcement agency that enforces the TCA in Thailand is the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) under the supervision of Trade Competition Commission (Commission). The Commission can investigate anti-competitive behaviour, issue orders and impose fines in some situations; it can also send criminal cases to the public prosecutor for further action. The Office of the Trade Competition Commission supports the TCCT in its investigative and enforcement work. For cases of bid rigging related to government contracts, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is responsible for enforcing the ORSBGA, which was enacted in 1999.

The TCA criminalises persons or entities engaging in hardcore cartel conduct, as set forth in Section 54. A person found guilty of an offence under this section may face imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to 10% of their turnover in the year the offence occurred, or both. By contrast, non-hardcore cartel conduct governed by Section 55 is subject to administrative enforcement, and violators may incur an administrative fine not to exceed 10% of the turnover for the year in which the offence took place.

If the violator is a juristic person and the offence is committed at the instruction or conduct of a director, manager or responsible individual, or if such an individual fails to perform a required action, thereby causing the juristic person to commit the offence, the individual is also subject to the same punishment; this is true for both hardcore and non-hardcore cartel conduct.

Persons who suffer damage as a result of a violation of the TCA may seek civil compensation. However, there are only limited precedents relating to private cartel damages claims in Thailand, and in practice civil enforcement is relatively new.

In the past year, there have been no major changes to the laws governing cartels in the TCA. However, the TCCT is becoming more active in enforcing the laws and investigations.

Under Section 69 of the TCA, a person who suffers damages as a result of cartel conduct or other violations of the TCA may bring a civil claim for damages. In principle, the claimant must show that:

• the defendant committed a violation of the TCA;
• the claimant suffered damages; and
• there is a causal link between the violation and the damages suffered.

In practice, private enforcement is limited, and few cartel damages cases have been reported in Thailand. There have been no substantial amendments to the legal framework governing private enforcement over the past year, and no changes are anticipated in the near future.

In addition, an individual who has incurred damages may file a claim for restitution under Section 420 of the Civil and Commercial Code. To succeed in such a claim, it is essential for the individual to demonstrate that a business operator has wilfully or negligently engaged in conduct that contravenes legal statutes, resulting in injury to another individual’s life, physical well-being, health, liberty, property or any other rights.

The term “cartel conduct” is not expressly defined in the TCA. Instead, it is addressed through the provisions concerning anti-competitive conduct, as outlined in Sections 54 and 55.

Section 54 relates to hardcore cartels, and defines circumstances in which business operators, in collaboration with other competing entities in the same market, engage in practices that lead to a monopoly, reduction or restriction of competition. These practices include, but are not limited to, price fixing, restriction of output, bid rigging, market allocation and analogous activities.

Section 55 addresses non-hardcore cartels and applies to situations in which business operators, working in conjunction with other entities in any market, engage in conduct that similarly results in monopolistic behaviour, as well as a reduction or limitation on competition. Examples of this conduct include price fixing, output restrictions, or market allocation arrangements between business operators that do not compete directly in the same market, along with actions that may reduce the quality of goods or services, result in the appointment of identical distributors, or impose specific terms or practices related to the purchase or sale of goods or services to uphold an agreement.

However, the TCA does not apply to central, regional or local administrations, state-owned enterprises, public organisations or other government agencies, provided that these entities conduct their activities in accordance with legal statutes or Cabinet resolutions that are essential for purposes of safeguarding national security, serving the public interest, protecting societal interests or ensuring the provision of public utilities. This exemption also applies to groups of farmers, co-operatives or co-operative organisations recognised under the law that seek to promote the agricultural vocation.

Businesses that fall within other specific sectoral regulations governing competition and related matters are also exempt from the TCA. This includes enterprises engaged in broadcasting, television and telecommunications, which are overseen by the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Energy sector businesses are regulated by the Office of the Energy Regulatory Commission. Financial institutions fall within the jurisdiction of the Bank of Thailand, and securities firms are regulated by the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Insurance enterprises are monitored by the Office of Insurance Commission, and civil aviation businesses are subject to regulation by the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand.

In Thailand, the limitation periods applicable to bringing a suit should be considered by reference to the nature of the relevant proceeding. These proceedings may be divided into the following three broad categories.

• Section 70 of the TCA expressly provides that a civil action for damages brought pursuant to Section 69 of the TCA must be brought within one year of the date on which the injured person knew or should have known of the cause of the damages; after this period, the right to bring a claim in court will lapse.
• In the case of a hardcore cartel, which is subject to criminal penalties, the offence may incur a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and potentially up to ten years. Consequently, the limitations period is ten years from the date of the commission of the offence.
• In the case of a non-hardcore cartel, which is subject to administrative penalties, there is no prescribed limitations period for challenges to an order or exercise of power by the Commission.

Under the TCA, the TCCT has the authority to regulate business conduct and enforce Thailand’s competition law where the relevant conduct affects competition in the Thai market. However, the TCA does not contain any specific provision expressly providing for extraterritorial application. The TCCT may seek to assert jurisdiction where conduct occurring outside Thailand produces anti-competitive effects within Thailand, although any such enforcement may be subject to practical limitations.

The TCA does not recognise principles of comity. At present, no precedent in any cartel case indicates whether the TCCT will take the fact that cartel participants were already penalised in a different jurisdiction into account when deciding whether or not to initiate proceedings under the TCA in Thailand.

Enforcement of cartel regulations in Thailand is limited, with the predominant focus on price fixing rather than bid rigging. This trend is reflected in the decisions issued by the Commission and the TCCT, which primarily address domestic price-fixing activities. To date, there have been no documented cases involving international cartels. Proceedings are typically initiated through complaints submitted to the TCCT or as a result of the TCCT’s own market-monitoring initiatives. It is important to highlight that Thailand does not have a leniency programme in place; hence, there are no formal incentives for offenders to make voluntary reports to the TCCT in exchange for immunity or a reduction in liability.

The TCCT has published guidelines on cartel conduct and enforcement, which are accessible to consumers and businesspeople on the TCCT website.

In general, initial investigatory steps are taken when the TCCT receives a complaint, or becomes aware of a potential violation of the TCA on its own initiative. At this preliminary stage, the officials may request that the complaint be amended (where a complaint is received), or seek additional facts or information, to assist with determining whether an actual violation has occurred. After a thorough review of the related facts, if the TCCT official finds sufficient evidence to support the existence of an alleged violation and believes it needs further attention, the Secretary-General will bring the issue to the Commission for consideration.

Under Section 63 of the TCA, officials from the TCCT can enter the business premises of a company or individual if they suspect a violation of the TCA; this includes places like production facilities, distribution centres, storage areas and service locations. The purpose of this entry is to ensure compliance with the TCA. Officials can also search for and seize documents, accounts, registers or other evidence needed for investigations and enforcement actions. They can ask for information, such as accounts and documents, from the business operator or anyone connected to the business. They can also instruct anyone present at these premises to take necessary actions.

In practice, the TCCT generally obtains a search warrant from a court before conducting a search. Upon arrival at the premises, officials typically begin by seeking the occupant’s co-operation and consent to the inspection. As a general principle, search warrants are usually issued for business premises only, unless there are specific facts indicating that relevant documents or important information are being kept at a private residence, in which case a warrant for a home search may also be sought. These searches are relatively common in respect of business premises, while home searches are far less frequent. If the occupant wishes to have their lawyer present, it is acceptable.

As far as is known, the TCCT stores any evidence it receives in a secure location and limits access exclusively to authorised personnel. Under the Criminal Code, if any person causes any property or document that has been seized by a competent official, or ordered to be submitted as evidence, or used for the lawful enforcement of the law, to be damaged, destroyed, concealed, removed, lost or rendered unusable, whether the property or document is kept by the official or entrusted to the relevant person or any other person for submission or safekeeping, the responsible person may be subject to imprisonment and/or a fine. This liability commences from the time the competent official effects the seizure.

Generally, where government officials conduct an investigation or interview an employee, the employee is entitled to have legal counsel present, including company counsel, except in the case of questioning in a hardcore cartel matter, in which case prior approval from the sub-committee of inquiry is required. During the investigation or interview, legal counsel may respond on behalf of the accused person or witness. In practice, however, the officials usually ask the accused person or witness to confirm whether counsel’s statement is accurate before it is formally recorded. Counsel should also prepare relevant information and supporting documents in advance of the questioning or interview.

In practice, TCCT officials typically gather documentary and testimonial evidence in cartel investigations through complaints and by exercising their statutory powers under Section 63 of the TCA. In particular, TCCT officials may issue a written summons requiring any person to appear and give statements, provide facts or written explanations, or submit accounts, registers, documents or other evidence for examination or consideration. They may also perform inspections or searches to obtain documents or information to establish infringement.

Thailand does not recognise the principle of attorney-client privilege. However, the regulations governing the professional conduct of lawyers prohibit attorneys from disclosing any confidential information obtained from clients during the course of their professional duties, unless the client has provided express consent or the disclosure is mandated by court order. In the absence of these circumstances, failure to maintain confidentiality may be construed as a breach of professional ethics, potentially subjecting the lawyer to disciplinary action by the Lawyers Council of Thailand, including revocation of the attorney’s licence.

Thai laws on criminal procedure recognise attorneys as individuals entitled to privilege, and grant them the right to refuse to answer questions or provide testimony in court that pertains to confidential communications made by the client during the attorney’s engagement. When in-house counsel communicates with an outside attorney in a representative capacity on behalf of a corporate client, those communications are also entitled to protection; the same protections apply where in-house counsel is a licensed attorney representing the company.

As information about non-cooperation is not generally publicly disclosed, there is limited public data on how frequently this type of resistance occurs. However, it is understood that most parties tend to co-operate, as the law grants the authorities relatively clear powers to request information. Any failure to comply or refusal to co-operate with formal requests from the TCCT may result in criminal sanctions, including imprisonment and/or fines.

If a company or individual needs to provide information or documents to the TCCT in connection with a case, they may identify it as confidential or proprietary, and can ask the authorities to keep it confidential. This confidentiality also applies to witnesses and third parties.

Anyone who shares business or operational details that the company usually keeps confidential may face imprisonment or a fine. This applies if they learned these details through proceedings under the TCA, but does not apply if the information is shared as part of official duties or for investigations, prosecutions or court processes. If someone learns these confidential details from another person and shares them in a way that could harm anyone, they will face the penalties set forth in Section 76 of the TCA, which also apply to the officials involved.

Defence counsel acting on behalf of the subject or target of a cartel investigation should begin protecting the client’s interests as early as possible, including by attending any questioning or interview and reviewing the relevant evidence before it is submitted to the TCCT. Counsel may also take proactive steps, such as submitting written explanations and supporting documents, meeting with the officials, providing statements, advancing factual and legal arguments, presenting mitigating factors, and requesting that the scope of any order or enforcement measure be limited.

If proceedings are initiated for purposes of pursuing criminal or administrative penalties, the relevant parties and their counsel are given the opportunity to present their arguments and defences during the course of the proceedings.

At present, the TCA does not have a leniency programme. The Commission will implement fine adjustments after rendering its decision, should it find it appropriate to do so.

Thailand does not currently have a formal system for amnesty or immunity related to cartel activities. This means there are no clear rules for obtaining amnesty, no defined scope of immunity, and no reliable public records of the competition authorities providing such relief. While the Commission may take mitigating factors into account when deciding penalties, this does not create a formal amnesty or immunity framework.

Thailand does not currently have a formal whistle-blower regime specifically for cartel conduct. However, any person may file a complaint with the TCCT through the following channels:

• in writing, by submitting the complaint either in person or by post;
• verbally to an officer, in the course of his or her duties or by telephone; or
• through the TCCT’s website, or by other available methods.

In these cases, the complainant is generally required to provide his or her name, address, telephone number and identification card number, to verify his or her identity. However, complainants are not entitled to any rewards for providing information. As far as is known, there is also no specific protection regime for cartel whistle-blowers. Whistle-blower counsel advertising does not appear to be common in Thailand.

The officials of the TCCT may seek information or testimony directly from current or former employees of a company, provided that the individuals possess relevant knowledge pertaining to the case. In these circumstances, TCCT officials typically initiate contact by sending a formal letter to request the necessary information or documentation, which may include the scheduling of an interview. Employees have the right to have legal counsel present to assist them in responding to inquiries from the TCCT officials.

The TCCT official has the authority to request necessary documents and information from the target company. This may include entering the company premises to retrieve the relevant documents or materials for further investigation, as set forth in Section 63 of the TCA. Requests must be made in writing, and must ensure that the requested documents, information or materials pertain to the specific matters under investigation.

The officials of the TCCT may seek to gather evidence from companies and individuals located outside of Thailand, as the TCA does not restrict enforcement solely within the country. If there are any violations of cartel regulations that affect Thailand, Section 63 of the TCA empowers TCCT officials to request evidence regardless of its location. In cases where evidence was stored with a parent company overseas or in cloud storage, TCCT officials have made official requests that the company based in Thailand submit the necessary documents. The existence of cloud storage should not impede the process, provided that authorised personnel have the ability and willingness to co-operate with the TCCT in fulfilling these requests.

The TCCT currently engages in substantial co-operation and co-ordination with various governmental agencies. This collaboration encompasses:

• the integration of arrest warrant information with the Office of the Judiciary;
• the exchange of bankruptcy information with the Legal Execution Department;
• a partnership with the Department of Special Investigation to enhance investigative efficiency; and
• joint efforts with the Department of Internal Trade to foster and oversee fair and equitable competition in business operations.

Nonetheless, in practice, information sharing may be subject to specific limitations, particularly when the relevant information relates to confidential data associated with ongoing proceedings conducted by other authorities, personal data or classified official information.

The TCCT has demonstrated an increasing commitment to international co-operation in the field of competition law enforcement. In 2025, it entered into memoranda of understanding with foreign competition authorities, including the Philippine Competition Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, with a view to enhancing regulatory co-operation and aligning its enforcement framework with international standards.

In practical terms, the enforcement of cartel regulations in Thailand appears to be relatively limited, particularly in relation to co-ordination with foreign authorities. As of May 2026, there are no publicly accessible statistics indicating the proportion of cartel cases in Thailand that involve international collaboration. It is understood that this co-operation is more likely to facilitate the exchange of policy perspectives, enforcement experiences and best practices, and may also have relevance in cross-border matters. Nonetheless, any enforcement actions undertaken in Thailand remain governed by Thai law, including applicable confidentiality restrictions and the statutory authority of the TCCT.

Anyone can submit a complaint to the TCCT to initiate action toward a criminal indictment. If a TCCT official believes there is reasonable evidence of a cartel violation, the issue will be forwarded to the Commission. If the Commission finds that the complaint involves a criminal offence, or both a criminal and an administrative offence, and that a specific person should be accused, it will take action and inform the complainant of its decision. Before making this decision, the Commission may ask the Secretary-General or an authorised official to gather more information, or to establish a subcommittee to do so.

The Commission may appoint an inquiry subcommittee to investigate alleged criminal offences under the TCA. Once the subcommittee concludes the investigation, it will meet to discuss and reach decisions on the alleged offence and the individuals involved, considering both the facts and the legal issues in the case. The subcommittee will then write an inquiry report and send it to the Commission along with the investigation file.

Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the Commission must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support that the accused has committed a criminal offence. Initially, the Commission will seek to resolve the matter through a settlement. It is essential to clarify that this settlement does not constitute a plea bargain; rather, it serves as a mechanism through which the Commission may resolve the offence by imposing a monetary fine.

Should the accused decline to accept the settlement, or agree but fail to remit the fine within the required time frame, the case is escalated to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court in the case of a hardcore cartel. It is important to note that an injured party may submit a complaint to the Commission under the TCA, but individuals are not permitted to initiate a criminal prosecution independently. In the absence of specific procedures set forth in the TCA, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding investigations will apply. The individual presenting the allegation is required to furnish evidence, and the case must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The pre-trial process is broadly similar to that applicable to general criminal cases. It typically includes notification of charges, an investigation, and submission of the case file to the public prosecutor. If the prosecutor determines that prosecution is warranted, an indictment will be filed. The accused may apply for bail, and the proceedings also involve an evidentiary review and a pre-trial hearing. In this context, the accused is generally entitled to review the evidence contained in the prosecution file submitted by the public prosecutor.

Any individual who suffers damages as a result of cartel violations possesses the right to file a civil lawsuit for damages against the violator directly with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. The Consumer Protection Commission, in accordance with consumer protection legislation, is also entitled to file lawsuits for damages on behalf of consumers or members of associations or foundations.

The pre-trial process is broadly similar to that applicable to ordinary civil proceedings, and generally includes:

• the filing of a statement of defence;
• preliminary examination of the claim;
• the identification of issues;
• a case management conference;
• mediation; and
• other pre-trial motions.

The defendant is generally entitled to review the evidence contained in the case file submitted by the claimant, and the individual presenting the allegations is required to furnish evidence.

The limitation period for damages claims is one year from the date on which the injured party knew or should have known of the cause of the damage; failure to commence an action within this period will result in lapse of the relevant claims. In practice, damages claims are often filed before the Commission has completed its evaluation of any allegations. As a result, the court’s determination as to whether damages should be awarded, and if so in what amount, may or may not align with the Commission’s decision.

Experts typically function as members of a subcommittee. Each subcommittee comprises individuals possessing knowledge and experience in criminal or administrative proceedings, appointed from among current or former public prosecutors, law enforcement officials and government representatives. The subcommittee may also include professionals with expertise in economics, law, commerce, accounting or other relevant fields, as required. The primary responsibility of these subcommittees is to assess and offer guidance on the conduct of criminal or administrative proceedings.

It is possible for multiple proceedings to arise from the same or related facts. In practice, however, the relevant matters are generally considered together, so the same body of evidence may be used, unless there are valid grounds for separation, such as the presence of trade secrets or other confidential business information. Where proceedings are separated, the same evidence cannot be referred to or relied upon in different proceedings, and related issues may not be raised in separate cases. However, witness testimony or a judgment may be submitted as evidence in another case.

The Commission itself does not have the power to impose imprisonment or criminal/administrative fines, as that authority rests solely with the courts. However, the TCA provides a mechanism pursuant to which the Commission may settle an offence by imposing a fine. The settlement is typically recognised as being in monetary terms; however, the Commission also possesses the authority to direct the business operator to suspend, cease or amend the relevant conduct, as set forth in Section 60 of the TCA.

If the accused party chooses not to accept the settlement or, after accepting it, fails to remit the fine within the specified timeframe, the matter shall be escalated to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court in the case of a hardcore cartel, or to an administrative court in the case of a non-hardcore cartel.

For more about sanctions, please see 5.7 Mandatory Consumer Redress.

As there are no public records available, it is not known whether any cartel enforcement investigations have been concluded without action by the TCCT.

The TCA has no established process for plea bargaining, but does provide a mechanism pursuant to which the Commission may settle an offence by imposing a fine; please see 5.1 Imposition of Sanctions/Fines.

Where a company or individual is determined to be liable or admits liability under the TCA, the prescribed penalties shall be enforced, and a decision or admission in the criminal proceedings may be used as evidence in a subsequent civil claim for damages. Any additional legal or commercial repercussions will depend on other relevant laws or regulations, such as criteria for director qualifications or eligibility to participate in public procurement processes. It is important to note that Thailand does not have any formal mechanisms for the settlement or plea bargaining in this context; therefore, these adverse consequences cannot be avoided or alleviated through such means.

With regard to penalties, please see 1.2 Regulatory/Enforcement Agencies and Penalties.

At present, no public notification has been issued setting out a specific method for calculating fines or damages. Nevertheless, any fines imposed must remain within the statutory maximums. The amount of the fine is determined with reference to factors such as the amount of damages, revenue, turnover and the duration of the conduct.

At present, there are no (or insufficient) statistics or information available concerning sanctions and penalties for cartel conduct involving companies and individuals in Thailand. As far as is known, there have been no instances of individuals serving custodial sentences, and no cases in which citizens have been extradited to another country for cartel-related offences. There are no records of citizens agreeing to serve time in jail in another country as part of a plea bargain.

The TCA does not expressly recognise an effective compliance programme as a factor in the imposition of sanctions or penalties. However, this does not necessarily preclude the Commission from taking such a programme into account as a mitigating factor. As far as is known, there are no precedents relating to this matter.

Under Section 60 of the TCA, if the Commission has sufficient evidence to believe that a business operator has violated or will violate cartel laws, it has the power to issue an order in writing to instruct the business operator to suspend, stop, correct or change the relevant conduct. When issuing an order, the Commission may impose any necessary conditions required in order to achieve the purposes of this Act. However, as far as is known, the Commission has never exercised this provision.

If an individual experiences damages due to cartel conduct and subsequently initiates a civil claim for damages against the violating party, where the Commission has concurrently issued an order pursuant to Section 60 of the TCA, the court may consider the order when evaluating damages. Nevertheless, any damages that are awarded will typically be confined to the actual loss incurred, as the existing provisions of the TCA do not permit the awarding of punitive damages.       

In general, once the Commission has issued its decision, a party found to have committed an offence may challenge that decision before the courts if it disagrees with or does not accept the Commission’s ruling.

In the case of a hardcore cartel, which constitutes a criminal offence, the matter must be brought before the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. In the resulting proceedings, the court will consider the evidence adduced by the parties in detail and undertake a more substantive assessment of the weight of the evidence.

By contrast, in the case of a non-hardcore cartel, the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court, which will primarily examine the lawfulness of the decision-making process, the proper exercise of discretion and whether the decision was proportionate, rather than reassessing the weight of the evidence in depth. If the underlying facts or decision-making process have changed materially, or if the proper exercise of discretion is not appropriate, the Commission’s decision may be overturned, but the Administrative Court generally tends to uphold the Commission’s decisions in practice.

A cartel enforcement investigation and proceeding may take approximately one to six years, depending on the complexity of the case and whether the offender agrees to pay the administrative fine imposed by the Commission. In some cases, the matter may be concluded within approximately one year, but there also are cases in which the parties contest the matter in court, and some of those proceedings have remained pending after six years.

Any individual who suffers damages as a result of a cartel violation has the right to bring a claim for damages directly against the infringing party before the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, for purposes of obtaining compensation for the individual’s own loss. By contrast, Section 60 of the TCA grants the Commission the power to issue a written order requiring a business operator to suspend, cease, rectify or modify relevant conduct for the purposes of public enforcement and protection of the public interest.

While the substantive standard for determining whether a violation has occurred is not materially different in either case, a private claimant is limited to seeking damages and must prove the actual loss suffered and the amount thereof to the satisfaction of the court. The Commission, on the other hand, has the independent authority to order the business operator to suspend, cease, rectify or modify the conduct, and therefore the range of available remedies is broader than that available in a private damages action. Nevertheless, in practice, the form of relief most commonly sought and obtained is damages.

According to Section 69 of the TCA, private competition claims may be pursued as class actions. Under Section 69 of the TCA, the Consumer Protection Commission and associations or foundations recognised by the Commission under relevant consumer protection legislation possess the authority to initiate lawsuits for damages on behalf of consumers. Members of these associations or foundations are also entitled to file claims on behalf of affected individuals or in the public interest. However, there is no available information about any class actions or cases filed by the Consumer Protection Commission, associations or foundations on behalf of affected parties.

The TCA does not recognise the concept of a “passing on” defence; however, in civil damages proceedings, it is possible that arguments relating to “passing on” may arise in connection with the assessment of damages.

Generally, evidence obtained in governmental investigations or proceedings is admissible in all types of cases. However, the parties must still establish the relevant facts independently, so the court may assess the evidentiary weight of relevant materials. Although the evidence may carry significant weight, the court is not bound to accept it as conclusive.

Private damages claims of this nature are rather limited in Thailand. When these claims are pursued, they tend to proceed to final judgment rather than being resolved through settlement; however, the body of relevant case law is minimal. In terms of duration, it is generally expected that these proceedings require several years to move from initiation to final resolution, particularly where the case involves complex factual or economic issues, or where the proceedings involve one or more levels of appeal.

The Civil Procedure Code grants courts discretion to determine a reasonable amount of attorney fees, as the court deems appropriate, provided that the amount does not exceed the legally established limits. In proceedings before the court of first instance, attorney fees shall not exceed 5% of the amount in dispute in cases involving monetary claims. In proceedings before the appellate court or Supreme Court, attorney fees shall not exceed 3% of the amount in dispute. In any event, the amount awarded shall not be less than THB3,000 per case.

In determining the amount of attorney fees to be borne by a party, the court considers the complexity of the case in relation to the time spent and the nature of the work performed by the lawyer(s).

The Civil Procedure Code grants courts broad discretionary power when issuing orders related to litigation costs, with a particular emphasis on the good faith of the parties involved. Typically, the court will require the unsuccessful party to bear the litigation costs incurred by the successful party. If the court determines that the unsuccessful party engaged in bad faith or employed delaying tactics during the proceedings, it may impose additional procedural expenses on that party, of up to 1% of the claim amount, in addition to the standard court fees.

Please also see 6.6 Attorneys’ Fees.

In Thailand, decisions rendered in private civil litigation are typically subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases and, subject to obtaining permission, may proceed to the Supreme Court for further appeal. At the appellate level, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases has the authority to review both factual and legal questions, contingent on the nature of the issues presented and the applicable procedural stipulations.

An appeal to the Supreme Court is not granted as a matter of right in all civil cases; rather, it generally requires permission and is restricted to significant legal questions, including those of public interest, discrepancies in judicial authority, the absence of pertinent precedent, or other issues that may require clarification for the advancement of legal understanding. In practical terms, appellate review is a frequent aspect of civil litigation, whereas Supreme Court review is more selective, and is granted only when the statutory criteria for further examination are satisfied.       

The TCA does not expressly prohibit the exchange of information among business operators. Consequently, the sharing of information may not immediately be regarded as an infringement of the TCA. However, if the information exchanged is later employed to engage in conduct that is prohibited under Sections 54 (Hard-Core Cartel) and 55 (Non-Hard-Core Cartel) of the TCA, those actions will constitute a violation of the TCA.

The TCCT is likely aware of the potential competition risks associated with the use of AI and pricing algorithms, particularly in digital markets, and is continuing to study these issues as part of its broader regulatory development. At present, however, there have been no publicly disclosed cartel investigations or enforcement actions in Thailand that directly relate to the use of those tools, nor is there clear public information confirming whether the TCCT currently uses AI or digital forensics specifically to detect or pursue cartel conduct.

In Thailand, monopolisation does not constitute a violation of cartel regulations unless the monopolistic business operator engages in conduct that is expressly prohibited under Sections 54 (Hard-Core Cartels) and/or 55 (Non-Hard Core Cartels) of the TCA. Those actions will be deemed a violation of the TCA.

It is understood that the TCCT is currently focusing its attention on sectors such as agricultural products, digital platforms and oil or fuel, due to their substantial impact on consumers and their critical importance to the broader economy.

Based on current understanding, there are no established precedents concerning the TCCT’s handling of the preservation and potential loss of evidence in cartel cases that involve messaging applications and chat platforms. There is a lack of guidance to companies concerning the preservation of ephemeral communications. The TCCT may request relevant documents, data and other digital evidence in the course of an investigation, utilising its general information-gathering powers. Therefore, once an investigation is anticipated or has commenced, any failure to preserve or produce the pertinent materials requested by the authority may result in practical challenges for the relevant party, and may expose it to repercussions for non-compliance with a lawful request or order.

There appears to be no reported Thai precedent directly addressing no poach agreements. In addition, labour market allocation is not expressly identified as a cartel offence in Sections 54 and 55 of the TCA, and therefore is not clearly recognised as falling within the statutory categories of cartel conduct under current Thai law. In practice, undertakings not to solicit or hire employees are more commonly encountered as contractual restraints in specific commercial contexts, and their enforceability may instead be considered under applicable labour law and laws relating to unfair contract terms.

The TCA does not have a leniency programme; consequently, there are no provisions for leniency or amnesty applications in Thailand. Most cases arise from complaints or information obtained by TCCT officials through social media channels.

As far as is known, there has been no evidence of a cross-border cartel to date. Consequently, cartel investigations in Thailand remain predominantly domestic in nature. This trend is likely to continue in the foreseeable future unless a complaint regarding a cross-border cartel is presented.       

In Thailand, there are currently no specific mandates or policies governing ESG practices related to cartel behaviour. In addition, ESG initiatives do not automatically exempt conduct that would otherwise qualify as cartel conduct from being deemed a violation of the TCA.

There is no clear evidence that post-pandemic inflation or supply chain issues have become a major focus for enforcement of anti-cartel laws in Thailand. However, these factors might affect how pricing practices are evaluated in a broader economic context. The current market conditions in some sectors might increase the risk of cartel behaviour, even though inflation or supply chain issues alone do not prove illegal collusion under the TCA.