Decision of Administrative or Quasi-judicial Agencies

Since the Act was effective in April 1999, the TCC has decided two significant cases, tying of whisky and beer and cable television monopoly.

Tying of whisky and beer

The investigation of the Office of the TCC as the secretariat of the TCC (the DIT) revealed that since one big whisky firm entered beer market, subagent of alleged whisky firm provided tying sale between whisky and beer to customers during significant period of time. They were forced to purchase whisky and beer even they only preferred to purchase whisky.

The TCC decided that tying of whisky and beer occurred in subagent and wholesale level. This trade restriction violated section 25(2) of the Act. However, the criteria of market domination
has not yet been approved by the Council of Ministers, therefore it could not apply for this case. Eventually, the TCC assigned the secretariat (the DIT) to:

• inform subagent that tying of whisky and beer was an inappropriate behavior and possible violation of section 25(2) of the Act requiring them to cease inappropriate behavior.
• monitor the movement of whisky and beer producers in particular and report to the TCC periodically.

Cable television monopoly

The investigation of the Office of the TCC as the secretariat of the TCC (the DIT) revealed the last two firms have conducted business in cable television market. These two firms have cooperated in cable television business. The cooperation between these two firms has provided same broadcasting programs and same price of service under same trademark, including its have been operated by same shareholders and executive committee. The price of service package or member fee has been continually increased otherwise the number of broadcasting service packages offered
for consumer selection have been continually reduced since beginning cooperation between these two firms was incurred.

The TCC decided that:

• cooperation between these two firms which have the same shareholders and have been operated by the same executive committee was a single unit under business operation of the company group so it did not violate section 27(1) of the Act.
• raising price of service packages or member fee by these two firms did not violate of section 25(1) because the financial status of these two firms faced lost concerning high cost of service and Thai currency depreciation for several years even after cooperation between these two firms was incurred as a single unit operation. Besides, the principle of cooperation between these two firms was aimed at sharing cost due to higher cost of acquired a copyright for broadcasting attractively foreign programs such as movies, music, cartoons, news, sports, and other famous programs.

In addition, the TCC assigned the secretariat of the TCC (the DIT) requested the Mass Communication Organization of Thailand (the MCOT) to closely monitor the number of broadcasting packages offered and the pricing behavior of the company so as to protect consumers from unfair practices.