Competition law in Malaysia is set out in the Competition Act 2010 (Act 712) and enforced by the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC). It prohibits two things: agreements that harm competition, and the abuse of market dominance. Enterprises that breach it risk a financial penalty of up to 10% of worldwide turnover, with decisions appealable to a specialist tribunal and the prospect of private claims for damages.

This guide explains how the law works in practice — the two prohibitions, who MyCC is and what it can do, the penalties, how to challenge a decision, and the merger control reform that is on the way. Each section links to a more detailed article on that topic.

Key takeaways • One Act, one regulator. Competition law in Malaysia is governed by the Competition Act 2010 (in force since 1 January 2012) and enforced by MyCC, an independent body established under the Competition Commission Act 2010. • Two prohibitions. The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements (Chapter 1, section 4) and the abuse of a dominant position (Chapter 2, section 10). • Serious penalties. A breach can attract a financial penalty of up to 10% of an enterprise’s worldwide turnover over the period of the infringement (section 40). • No general merger control — yet. Only aviation and communications are covered today. A general merger control regime has been proposed through amendments to the Act but is not yet in force. • Appeals and private claims. Decisions go to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), and businesses harmed by a breach can sue for damages under section 64.

What is competition law, and why does Malaysia have it?

Competition law protects the process of competition in a market. The premise is that when businesses compete on a level playing field, the result is lower prices, better quality, more choice and more innovation for consumers and the wider economy. The law steps in where businesses distort that process — for example by colluding to fix prices, or by a powerful firm shutting rivals out.

Malaysia introduced a general competition regime relatively recently. The Competition Act 2010 came into force on 1 January 2012, together with the Competition Commission Act 2010, which created the regulator. Before that, competition was regulated only in specific sectors. The Act now applies across the economy, subject to the exclusions discussed below.

Who enforces competition law in Malaysia?

The regulator is the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) (in Malay, Suruhanjaya Persaingan Malaysia). MyCC investigates suspected breaches, decides whether the law has been broken, issues guidelines, and imposes penalties. At policy level it sits under the Minister of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living. Crucially, MyCC does not hear appeals against its own decisions — that is the role of a separate body, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

For a full breakdown of MyCC’s structure and powers, see our article on the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC): role, powers and structure.

Who and what does the Competition Act apply to?

The Act applies to any commercial activity carried on by an enterprise, whether the activity takes place inside or outside Malaysia, so long as it affects competition in a market in Malaysia. This extraterritorial reach means conduct agreed abroad can still be caught if its effects are felt here. “Enterprise” is defined broadly and includes government-linked companies carrying on commercial activities.

Two sets of carve-outs matter:

• Excluded sectors (First Schedule). Certain industries are taken out of the Act because they have their own sector regulators — notably communications and multimedia (regulated under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998), energy (Energy Commission Act 2001), and petroleum upstream activities (Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the Petroleum Regulations 1974).
• Excluded activities (Second Schedule). Certain activities are excluded from the prohibitions — for example conduct engaged in to comply with a legislative requirement, and the provision of services of general economic interest. These exclusions are read narrowly.

The first prohibition: anti-competitive agreements (Chapter 1)

Section 4 prohibits agreements between enterprises that have the object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition in a market. It catches both horizontal agreements (between competitors at the same level of the supply chain) and vertical agreements (between businesses at different levels, such as a supplier and a distributor).

Some horizontal agreements are treated as so harmful that they are deemed anti-competitive by their very object, without any need to prove their effect. Under section 4(2) these are agreements that fix prices, share markets or sources of supply, limit or control production or market access, or involve bid rigging. These are the classic “cartel” conduct, and MyCC has acted on each: its enforcement record includes a market-sharing finding against major airlines under section 4(2)(b), price-fixing findings against feed millers, and bid-rigging findings in public procurement.

Not every restrictive agreement is unlawful. Section 5 allows an enterprise to relieve its liability where the agreement produces net economic benefits, provided four conditions are cumulatively met (genuine benefits; the restriction is indispensable to achieving them; it is proportionate; and it does not eliminate competition in a substantial part of the market). Beyond that, an enterprise can apply for an individual exemption under section 6, and MyCC can grant a block exemption for a whole category of agreements under section 8 (as it has explored for liner shipping agreements).

See our deeper guides on anti-competitive agreements, cartels, vertical agreements and resale price maintenance, and block and individual exemptions.

The second prohibition: abuse of a dominant position (Chapter 2)

Section 10 prohibits an enterprise from abusing a dominant position in a market. An important point often misunderstood by businesses: being dominant is not itself unlawful — a company is free to win a large market share by competing well. What the law prohibits is the misuse of that position to harm competition.

Assessing a Chapter 2 case therefore happens in two steps. First, define the relevant market and ask whether the enterprise is dominant in it (market share is a strong indicator but not the only one). Second, ask whether its conduct amounts to abuse. Abuses include predatory pricing (pricing below cost to drive out rivals), margin squeeze, refusing to supply an essential input, tying and bundling, exclusivity arrangements, and applying discriminatory terms. MyCC has made abuse-of-dominance findings under section 10, including against a dominant provider of online government-related services.

See abuse of dominant position, defining the relevant market and market power, and exclusionary abuses such as predatory pricing.

How does MyCC investigate and decide a case?

An investigation can begin on a complaint (section 15) or on MyCC’s own initiative (section 14). During an investigation MyCC has significant powers: it can require a business to provide information and documents (section 18) and can search premises and seize material under a warrant (section 25). Obstructing MyCC, or destroying or concealing relevant records (section 24), is itself an offence. Information given to MyCC is subject to confidentiality protections (section 21), and legally privileged communications are protected (section 22).

If MyCC believes the law has been broken, it issues a proposed decision (section 36) setting out its case. The enterprise can make written and oral representations and is entitled to a hearing (sections 37 and 38). MyCC then makes either a finding of non-infringement (section 39) or a finding of infringement (section 40). In urgent cases it can impose interim measures (section 35) before the process concludes.

For the full process, including what to do if MyCC arrives at your premises, see how MyCC investigates: powers, dawn raids and the process.

What are the penalties and consequences?

When MyCC makes a finding of infringement under section 40 it can impose a financial penalty of up to 10% of the enterprise’s worldwide turnover over the period during which the infringement occurred, and it can direct the enterprise to stop or change its conduct. MyCC can also accept binding undertakings (section 43) to resolve concerns.

These penalties can be very large — in one prominent case MyCC issued a proposed penalty of around RM173.66 million against an insurance association and its members for alleged price-fixing. That case is also a reminder that decisions can be overturned: the CAT later set the penalty aside. Penalties sit alongside reputational damage and the risk of private damages claims from those harmed.

See financial penalties and sanctions for competition breaches.

Can you reduce a penalty by coming forward? The leniency regime

Yes. Section 41 establishes a leniency regime for cartel conduct. An enterprise that admits its involvement and cooperates with MyCC — particularly the first to come forward — can obtain a reduction of up to 100% of the penalty. Because only the earliest applicants get the greatest benefit, there is a strong first-mover advantage, and the decision whether to self-report is often time-critical.

See the leniency regime: reporting a cartel to MyCC.

How do you challenge a MyCC decision?

Appeals go to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), a specialist body established under section 44 of the Act. The CAT has exclusive jurisdiction to review MyCC’s decisions on interim measures (section 35), non-infringement (section 39) and infringement (section 40). An aggrieved party appeals under section 51, and may seek a stay of the decision pending appeal (section 53). The CAT’s president is drawn from the High Court bench, and its members bring expertise in law, economics, commerce, accounting and consumer affairs. Beyond the CAT, judicial review in the courts may be available in appropriate cases.

See appealing a MyCC decision: the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

Can businesses sue for competition law breaches?

Yes. Section 64 gives any person who suffers loss or damage caused by an infringement a right of action in civil proceedings, and section 64(2) allows both direct and indirect purchasers to sue. Historically, a claimant was generally expected to rely on a prior MyCC finding (a “follow-on” claim). That position is shifting: in a 2025 High Court decision, the absence of a MyCC finding was treated as legally neutral and not a bar to a private action — a development worth watching as private enforcement grows.

See private enforcement and damages claims in Malaysia.

What about mergers and acquisitions?

Important: Malaysia does not currently have a general merger control regime. It is widely noted as the only ASEAN jurisdiction whose competition authority cannot, at present, review M&A generally. The only merger control in force is sector-specific — aviation (under the Malaysian Aviation Commission Act 2015) and communications and multimedia (under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998). A general regime has been proposed since MyCC’s 2022 public consultation and repeatedly announced for tabling, but it is not yet law. As proposed, it would be a hybrid model (mandatory notification above a threshold, voluntary below), apply a substantial-lessening-of-competition (SLC) test, reach mergers transacted inside or outside Malaysia that affect a Malaysian market, and involve a review of up to 120 working days.

See merger control in Malaysia: the proposed new regime, will your deal be notifiable?, and sector-specific merger control.

How should businesses stay on the right side of the law?

Compliance is far cheaper than an investigation. Sensible steps include mapping where competition risk arises in the business, putting a competition policy and training in place, reviewing agreements with competitors, distributors and suppliers, taking care with trade-association activity and information exchange, and being ready to respond properly if MyCC makes contact. Businesses in fast-moving digital markets should pay particular attention, as this is a growing area of regulatory focus.

See building a competition law compliance programme, competition law for trade associations, and competition law in the digital economy.

Where is Malaysian competition law heading?

The most significant change on the horizon is the amendment package to the Competition Act 2010 and the Competition Commission Act 2010. As described by MyCC, it would strengthen investigation and enforcement powers, introduce the general merger control regime, add whistleblower protection and rewards, and reinforce the CAT. None of this is yet in force, but businesses — especially those active in M&A — should prepare for a more interventionist regime. We update this guide as the reforms progress.

How does competition law affect everyday business decisions?

Competition law is not only about secret cartels and giant monopolies. It touches routine commercial decisions that businesses of every size make, and the riskiest moments are often ordinary ones:

• Pricing. Setting your own prices is the essence of competition and is perfectly lawful. Agreeing prices, discounts, fees or surcharges with a competitor is not — it is price-fixing under section 4(2)(a).
• Joint ventures and collaborations. Cooperation between businesses is often pro-competitive, but using a joint venture or a meeting to share commercially sensitive information with a competitor — current or future prices, costs, customers or strategy — can itself breach Chapter 1.
• Distribution and franchising. You can appoint distributors and allocate territories, but dictating the minimum price at which a distributor may resell (resale price maintenance) is high-risk. A well-known early example saw a multinational consider an exemption application to continue resale price maintenance before stepping back after engaging with MyCC.
• Tenders and procurement. Coordinating bids with a competitor, submitting cover prices, or agreeing who should win is bid rigging under section 4(2) — a hardcore restriction and a repeated focus of MyCC enforcement in public procurement.
• Trade association activity. Industry statistics and benchmarking can be valuable, but circulating individualised, current or forward-looking pricing data among competitors can cross the line into unlawful information exchange.

Before any of these steps, a quick check is cheap insurance compared with a penalty of up to 10% of worldwide turnover.

What does a “significant” restriction mean? The de minimis safe harbour

Section 4 only catches agreements that significantly prevent, restrict or distort competition. MyCC’s guidance indicates that agreements between parties with small combined market shares may not be treated as having a significant effect — a practical “de minimis” safe harbour. The important caveat is that this safe harbour does not apply to the hardcore by-object restrictions: price-fixing, market sharing, output limitation and bid rigging are caught regardless of how small the parties are. So a small distributor’s ordinary vertical arrangement may sit outside the prohibition, while two small competitors who agree to fix prices will not escape it.

Are directors and individuals personally liable?

For the two prohibitions, the Act works mainly through administrative financial penalties on enterprises — there is no general criminal offence simply for being party to an anti-competitive agreement, and the focus is on the business rather than imprisoning individuals. That said, conduct during an investigation is treated more seriously: obstructing MyCC, failing to comply with a lawful requirement, providing false or misleading information, and destroying or concealing relevant records can attract criminal liability for individuals as well as companies. Directors should therefore take care with both day-to-day compliance and the handling of any MyCC contact.

What does a MyCC case look like from start to finish?

It helps to see how the pieces fit together as a sequence:

• Trigger. A complaint (section 15) or MyCC’s own initiative (section 14).
• Investigation. Information requests (section 18) and, where warranted, a search of premises (section 25).
• Proposed decision. MyCC sets out its provisional findings (section 36).
• Response. The enterprise makes written and oral representations and is heard (sections 37–38).
• Decision. A finding of non-infringement (section 39) or infringement (section 40), with any penalty and directions.
• Appeal. An appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (section 51).
• Private claims. Separately, those harmed may sue for damages (section 64).

A quick glossary of key terms

• Enterprise — any entity carrying on commercial activity, including companies and government-linked companies.
• Horizontal agreement — an agreement between competitors at the same level of the supply chain.
• Vertical agreement — an agreement between businesses at different levels, such as a supplier and a distributor.
• Cartel — collusion between competitors, typically price-fixing, market sharing, output limitation or bid rigging.
• Dominant position — a position of significant market power that lets a firm act largely independently of competitors and customers.
• Abuse — the misuse of a dominant position to harm competition, such as predatory pricing or refusal to supply.
• SLC — substantial lessening of competition, the test proposed for the new merger control regime.
• Leniency — a reduced penalty for a cartel participant who self-reports and cooperates (section 41).

Frequently asked questions

Is competition law the same as antitrust law?

Yes. “Competition law” is the term used in Malaysia and the Commonwealth; “antitrust” is the United States term for the same field. Both regulate anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of market power.

When did competition law come into force in Malaysia?

The Competition Act 2010 (Act 712) came into force on 1 January 2012. It is enforced by the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC).

What is the maximum penalty for breaching competition law in Malaysia?

Under section 40 of the Competition Act 2010, MyCC may impose a financial penalty of up to 10% of an enterprise’s worldwide turnover over the period during which the infringement occurred, in addition to directions to stop the conduct.

Does Malaysia regulate mergers and acquisitions?

Not generally — yet. The Competition Act 2010 does not currently contain a general merger control regime; only the aviation and communications sectors are covered by sector-specific rules. A general regime has been proposed through amendments to the Act but is not yet law.

What is the difference between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the Act?

Chapter 1 (section 4) prohibits anti-competitive agreements between enterprises, such as cartels. Chapter 2 (section 10) prohibits a business that holds a dominant position in a market from abusing that position.

Can I report a competitor’s anti-competitive conduct to MyCC?

Yes. Any person may lodge a complaint with MyCC under section 15 of the Act. MyCC can also investigate on its own initiative under section 14.

Are there criminal penalties under the Competition Act?

The two prohibitions are enforced mainly by administrative financial penalties on enterprises rather than by imprisonment. However, offences connected with an investigation — obstructing MyCC, giving false or misleading information, or destroying or concealing records — can carry criminal liability for both individuals and companies.

Does competition law apply to government-linked companies (GLCs)?

Yes. The Act applies to any enterprise carrying on commercial activity, which includes GLCs. Only the sectors and activities specifically excluded by the First and Second Schedules fall outside it.

Speak to NZSK’s competition law team If you have received a notice from MyCC, are reviewing an agreement or a contemplated deal, or want to put a compliance programme in place, our competition law team can help. Ng, Zainurul, Seke & Khoo (NZSK) Offices: Mont Kiara and Puchong Phone / WhatsApp: 016-557 4789 Email: [email protected] Web: nzsklegal.com