Trade Competition: Multi-Sided Platforms

on
woman using a laptop

Trade Competition: Multi-Sided Platforms

Overview

The rapid expansion of the digital economy—particularly in e-commerce and multi-sided platform businesses—has significantly reshaped market structures and competitive dynamics. Multi-sided platforms operate as intermediaries connecting multiple groups of users, including sellers, consumers, logistics providers, payment channels, and advertisers. While such platforms generate economic efficiencies and drive innovation, they also introduce heightened risks under competition law.

To ensure the effective enforcement of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) in the digital context, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT”) has issued the Guidelines on the Assessment of Monopolistic Conduct, Reduction or Restriction of Competition, and Unfair Trade Practices in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses, Digital Services, and E-Commerce Businesses (published in the Royal Gazette on 24 March 2026). These Guidelines establish a regulatory framework for evaluating platform conduct in light of evolving digital market realities.

1. Monopoly and Reduction of Competition

The Guidelines recognize the structural characteristics inherent to multi-sided platforms, particularly the presence of network effects, whereby growth on one side of the platform increases value on the other sides. This dynamic can lead to market concentration, create significant barriers to entry, and foster dependency on a limited number of dominant platforms.

In assessing whether a platform holds dominant market power, the TCCT does not rely solely on price-based indicators. Additional factors considered include:

  • Control over data and algorithms;
  • The ability to determine or influence commercial terms;
  • The degree of user dependency on the platform.

Conduct that may constitute monopolization or a reduction or restriction of competition includes predatory pricing, excessive pricing, exclusionary contractual conditions, refusal to deal, and exclusive arrangements that prevent users or business partners from engaging with competing platforms.

2. Unfair Trade Practices

Even where a platform does not qualify as a dominant operator, certain conduct may still constitute an unfair trade practice—particularly where a significant imbalance of bargaining power exists between the platform and its business users, such as small- and medium-sized sellers.

The Guidelines identify the following conduct as potentially unfair:

  • The imposition of rate parity clauses restricting sellers from offering lower prices on other platforms;
  • Charging excessive or discriminatory commission fees, advertising fees, logistics fees, or other service charges;
  • Unilateral modification of contractual terms;
  • Discriminatory product ranking, visibility reduction, or self-preferencing of the platform’s own products or affiliated businesses;
  • Arbitrary suspension or removal of seller accounts without fair and transparent procedures.

Such conduct may distort competitive conditions and undermine fairness in digital markets, even where it does not rise to the level of monopolistic abuse.

3. Multi-Sided Platform Considerations

The Guidelines underscore that multi-sided platforms differ fundamentally from traditional businesses, as they operate across multiple interdependent markets—including those for sellers, consumers, advertisers, logistics providers, and payment services.

Accordingly, the assessment of platform conduct requires an analysis of overall competitive effects across all sides of the platform, rather than a single-market approach. Particular attention is given to data-driven practices, including the use of third-party data (data leveraging), algorithm-based decision-making, ranking systems, and platform design features that may materially affect competition.

Key Takeaways

Regulators assess competitive effects across all sides of the platform, with particular focus on the use of data, algorithms, and self-preferencing practices.

Multi-sided platforms are subject to heightened competition law scrutiny due to network effects, data control, and user dependency.

Market power may exist even in the absence of direct fees, requiring assessment beyond traditional price-based indicators.

Monopolistic and exclusionary conduct—such as predatory pricing, exclusivity arrangements, or refusal to deal—may constitute a reduction or restriction of competition.

Unfair trade practices can arise independently of dominance, particularly where there is a significant imbalance of bargaining power between platforms and business users.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

Posted in

Tagged as