Philippines Thailand Competition Law: What the PCC–TCCT Agreement Changes
Two regulators can now share enforcement data and coordinate investigations across borders. If your company trades in both markets, the compliance question is no longer answered one country at a time.
Most regulatory news is safely ignored. This is not. On 4 February 2025, the Philippine Competition Commission and the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand signed a Memorandum of Understanding at the PCC's office in Quezon City. In practice, Philippines Thailand competition law has stopped being two separate compliance questions and become one. For a company with operations, a franchise or a distribution arrangement in both countries, the practical change is that what one regulator learns, the other can now be told.
On this page
01What the agreement actually does
The MoU sets up a working framework between the two agencies rather than new law. Four things sit in it, and the order matters — each one raises the reach of the other.
- Information sharing. Both agencies will exchange relevant enforcement data, which makes anti-competitive conduct visible across the pair rather than in one market at a time.
- Notification of enforcement activity. Each regulator informs the other of the actions it takes. For companies this cuts both ways: more transparency, and no quiet jurisdiction.
- Coordination of investigations. Joint investigations are now possible where a company operates in both markets. This is the provision with real teeth.
- Technical cooperation. Training programmes, personnel exchanges and joint capacity building — the slow-burn item that raises both agencies' capability over time.
None of this creates an offence that did not exist. What it changes is the probability of detection, and the speed at which a finding in one country becomes a question in the other. That is a meaningful shift for anyone who had, consciously or not, been managing compliance market by market.
02What it means for large companies
If you run cross-border operations, read this as increased scrutiny rather than new obligations. Three areas move first.
| Area | What changes in practice |
|---|---|
| Mergers & acquisitions | Where a target trades in both countries, the authorities can coordinate their review of anti-competitive effects. Plan for two regulators talking to each other, and for a longer timetable. |
| Cartel conduct | Price-fixing and market-sharing arrangements spanning both jurisdictions become materially easier to detect, and penalties can follow in both. |
| Abuse of dominance | A dominant position in one market is now assessed with better sight of behaviour in the other. Distribution and exclusivity terms deserve a fresh read. |
For companies establishing a second regional office off the back of an acquisition, the practical consequence is sequencing: the regulatory review and the property commitment should not run in parallel on the assumption that approval is a formality. When we handle an office search for an incoming corporate client, the lease timeline is one of the first things we pin to the deal timeline rather than to the target move-in date.
03Why smaller businesses may gain
For a foreign entrepreneur or an SME, tighter enforcement is more often an opportunity than a threat. The whole point of competition law is to constrain the players large enough to distort a market.
Where a dominant incumbent is found to be competing unfairly, regulators acting together can open space that a smaller competitor could not have prised open alone. And stronger enforcement tends to suppress artificially inflated input costs — a small importer or franchisee pays less when the supply chain above them is under scrutiny.
⚠ The obligation runs both ways
Smaller businesses are not exempt. If you are setting up a franchise, signing an exclusive distribution agreement or entering a joint venture in either country, those contracts are exactly what competition law examines. Have them reviewed locally before signature — not after a regulator asks about them.
04The wider ASEAN picture
This agreement is not an isolated gesture. It sits inside ASEAN's Competition Action Plan, and it is the latest in a sequence — the PCC has already concluded comparable arrangements with China in 2019, Hong Kong in 2020, Singapore in 2021 and Australia in 2024.
5
Key figure
Cross-border competition arrangements the PCC has now signed since 2019 — China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and Thailand. The direction of travel is not in doubt.
Vietnam has also been strengthening its own competition regime, and a similar arrangement with either the Philippines or Thailand would be a logical next step — particularly for logistics operators, e-commerce platforms and manufacturers present in all three markets. That remains speculation rather than an announced plan, and it should be read as such. But the planning assumption for any company operating across the region should be convergence, not divergence.
The PCC is also building domestic capability. In November 2024 it launched its first mandatory continuing legal education programme on competition law, at the University of the Philippines campus in Bonifacio Global City, covering the economics of competition law, enforcement strategy, compliance in commercial agreements and the handling of disputes. For a foreign investor, that is a useful signal of where local legal expertise is being concentrated.
05What to do about it
Four practical steps, in the order we would take them with a client expanding across the two markets.
01
Review the contracts you already have
Exclusivity, territorial restrictions, resale pricing and franchise terms in both countries. Anything drafted when the two regimes felt separate is worth a second read.
02
Treat compliance as one perimeter
A single position across both markets, not two local answers. Where the regulators coordinate, an inconsistency between your two positions is itself a finding.
03
Build regulatory review into deal timelines
For any transaction touching both countries, assume coordinated review and a longer clock. Do not let property, hiring or shipping commitments depend on a fast clearance.
04
Take local advice, in both jurisdictions
Convergent enforcement does not mean identical law. The regimes remain distinct, and only local counsel can tell you where they differ on the point that concerns you.
The costs of getting the regulatory groundwork wrong sit alongside the other expenses companies routinely underestimate when they expand into the region — a subject we set out in detail in our guide to the hidden costs of relocating to Southeast Asia. On the mobility side, our regional destination services team works across all three countries, which is what allows a single coordinator to hold a two-country move together.
Expanding into a second market?
Tell us where you are opening and when, and we will map the office, housing and mobility side against your own deal timeline. Talk to us about a corporate setup →
06Common questions
What did the Philippines and Thailand actually sign?
A Memorandum of Understanding between the Philippine Competition Commission and the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand, signed on 4 February 2025 at the PCC office in Quezon City. It covers information sharing, notification of enforcement activity, coordination of investigations, and technical cooperation including training and personnel exchanges.
Does this create new obligations for my company?
No. The MoU does not create new offences or change either country's competition law. What it changes is enforcement: the likelihood of detection rises, and a finding in one market can become a question in the other. The obligations were already there; the scrutiny is what has increased.
How does it affect mergers and acquisitions?
Where a target operates in both countries, the two authorities can coordinate their assessment of anti-competitive effects. Plan for a longer review and for the regulators comparing notes, and avoid making property, hiring or shipping commitments that depend on a rapid clearance.
Is this good or bad news for a small business?
Generally good. Competition law constrains the players large enough to distort a market, so tighter enforcement can open space for smaller competitors and suppress artificially inflated input costs. But SMEs are not exempt: franchise, exclusivity and joint venture agreements are precisely what regulators examine.
Will Vietnam sign a similar agreement?
It is plausible but not announced. Vietnam has been strengthening its own competition regime, and an arrangement with either country would be a logical step for businesses present in all three markets. Treat it as a planning assumption about the direction of travel, not as a commitment.
Is this part of something wider?
Yes. It sits within ASEAN's Competition Action Plan, and it is the fifth such arrangement the PCC has concluded since 2019, after China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia. The PCC has also begun formal competition-law education for legal professionals, launched in November 2024.
Other Blogs by Asia Relocation
