Mumbai: Shares of quick service restaurant operators and online delivery platforms weakened on Thursday as a shortage of commercial LPG cylinders disrupted operations and is feared to hit delivery volumes.

Among online delivery platforms, shares of Eternal (Zomato) and Swiggy each ended 1% lower after declining as much as 5%.

Westlife Foodworld, operator of McDonald’s restaurants in West and South India, slipped about 3%, Jubilant FoodWorks, a franchisee of Domino’s brand, fell nearly 2.4% and Speciality Restaurants, owner of multiple restaurant chains, ended 0.2% lower.

“The decline in food delivery and QSR stocks appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to concerns around a potential shortage of commercial LPG cylinders and the possible disruption it may cause to restaurant operations,” said Nirali Bhansali, equity fund manager at Samco Mutual Fund.

According to Sunny Agarwal, head of fundamental research at SBI Securities, feedback from restaurant owners suggests LPG supply disruptions have begun affecting kitchen operations in some places, although the impact on large listed QSR chains is likely to be limited.

“Many restaurant owners have indicated disruption in the supply of LPG and the likely impact on smooth operations,” Agarwal said, adding that organised QSR chains are relatively less dependent on commercial LPG cylinders as they often rely on electric ovens and other cooking equipment.
Technical indicators are flashing signs of a pullback in Eternal Ltd and Jubilant FoodWorks. “Technically, on the short-term time frame, Eternal is forming lower highs and is trading comfortably below short-term averages, which is largely negative,” said Amol Athawale, vice-president, technical research at Kotak Securities.

So far this month, Eternal Ltd shares have corrected more than 10%.

If the stock succeeds in trading above the 210-215 range, the pullback could extend towards 235-240. On the other hand, below 210 the sentiment could turn negative, in which case traders may prefer to exit long positions, Athawale said.

Jubilant FoodWorks slipped below its crucial support zone of 480, after which selling pressure intensified. “As long as the stock remains below ‘480, the weak formation is likely to continue on the downside, with potential retests of 450 and 440,” he said.

Thailand is quietly engineering one of Southeast Asia’s most consequential regulatory shifts. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in commerce, finance, and governance, the kingdom is developing a legal framework that will redefine how companies, both local and multinational, build, deploy, and govern AI systems within Thai territory.

Key takeaways

• Thailand is building a comprehensive, risk-based national AI framework that will impose direct legal duties on both AI providers and deployers, with a dedicated AI Governance Center set to oversee enforcement.
• Sector-specific AI regulations in judicial processes, consumer protection, and financial services are already in force, meaning legal exposure for businesses is current, not future.
• Companies must act now by strengthening internal AI governance, updating external-facing documents, and maintaining clear documentation to stay ahead of tightening transparency and accountability requirements.

According to a legal update published on March 9, 2026, by Baker McKenzie, the country’s AI regulatory framework is no longer a distant ambition. It is a developing legal reality, and businesses that fail to prepare now risk being caught flat-footed when the full weight of legislation arrives.

A Framework in Motion, But Not Yet Law

At the heart of Thailand’s regulatory evolution is a comprehensive national AI framework currently in development, with enactment projected within the next few years. The framework is not a patchwork of ad-hoc rules. It is a structured, principles-driven architecture built on a risk-based model, one that classifies AI systems by the severity of harm they may cause and assigns corresponding legal obligations.

This is a design philosophy already proven in the European Union’s landmark AI Act, and Thailand’s adoption of a similar tiered approach signals that Bangkok is watching the global regulatory conversation carefully and choosing to align itself with emerging international standards rather than chart an isolated course.

Under the forthcoming framework, the obligations will be sharpest for those operating at the frontier. High-risk AI providers, those who develop and commercialise AI systems, and deployers, businesses that implement AI tools in their products and services, will face explicit legal duties. The specifics are still being shaped, but the direction is clear: accountability will be demanded at every link in the AI value chain.

Individual Rights at the Centre

Critically, the national framework does not only address industry compliance. It also establishes individual rights in relation to AI, a move that places human dignity and autonomy at the normative centre of Thailand’s AI governance model.

The inclusion of individual rights signals that Thai regulators understand AI regulation is not merely a business compliance exercise. It is, fundamentally, a question of how technology mediates the relationship between citizens, institutions, and power. These rights, when enacted, are expected to give Thai individuals recourse when AI systems affect decisions that touch their lives, from credit assessments and job applications to healthcare triage and judicial processes.

A New Regulator on the Horizon: The AI Governance Center

Oversight of this framework will fall to a newly created body: the AI Governance Center. While its full mandate, staffing, and enforcement powers are yet to be publicly detailed, its creation is the clearest institutional signal yet that Thailand is not merely passing laws. It is building the bureaucratic infrastructure to enforce them.

For businesses, the emergence of a dedicated AI regulator is a pivotal development. It means that, unlike today’s diffuse enforcement environment, there will soon be a single authoritative body empowered to investigate, sanction, and guide AI use across sectors.

Sector-Specific Rules Already in Force

Critically, businesses should not mistake the pending national framework for a regulatory vacuum. Multiple sector-specific rules are already in effect, covering domains as varied as judicial processes, governing the use of AI in legal and court proceedings, consumer protection, setting standards for AI-driven transactions and interactions, and financial services, addressing algorithmic decision-making, risk modelling, and customer-facing AI in banking and fintech. These rules carry immediate legal force. Non-compliance is not a future risk; it is a present one.

Soft Law Is Shaping Hard Expectations

Beyond binding regulations, Thailand has also cultivated a growing body of non-binding guidelines on ethical and responsible AI use. While these documents carry no direct legal penalty, their significance should not be underestimated.

In regulatory practice globally, soft law often precedes hard law. Guidelines shape how regulators interpret ambiguous situations, how courts assess reasonableness, and how enforcement priorities are set. Businesses that dismiss ethical AI guidelines as voluntary risk misunderstand how they function in practice as pre-competitive compliance benchmarks.

The AI and Privacy Nexus: A Draft Under Public Scrutiny

One of the most closely watched recent developments is the release of a draft regulation addressing the intersection of AI and privacy, which has been sent for public hearing. This reflects a recognition, increasingly common among regulators worldwide, that AI and data protection law are inseparable.

AI systems are, at their core, data-processing engines. They ingest personal information, learn from it, generate outputs that reflect it, and often make decisions that affect the people it belongs to. Treating AI governance and privacy regulation as distinct silos was never intellectually coherent, and Thailand’s move to address them together is a significant step toward regulatory coherence.

The Prescription for Businesses: Act Now, Not Later

Baker McKenzie’s Bangkok partners Pattaraphan Paiboon and Kritiyanee Buranatrevedhya, along with associates Aue-angkul Santirongyuth, Pimpisa Ardborirak, and Pirun Suttiprapha, are unambiguous in their guidance to businesses navigating this hybrid environment.

The advice is to act proactively, not reactively. Companies are advised to build internal AI governance frameworks before regulators demand it, documenting how AI is used internally, who is responsible for oversight, and what risk controls are in place. Businesses should also update external-facing documentation, including terms of service, privacy notices, and consumer disclosures, to reflect AI use, particularly as transparency obligations crystallise in law. Maintaining clear, defensible documentation is equally important, as the strength of a company’s position will depend heavily on its paper trail when regulators eventually scrutinise AI deployments. Finally, companies must mitigate legal exposure under existing law, since consumer protection, data privacy, financial services, and tort law already apply to AI-related harms, regardless of whether a dedicated AI law is yet in force.

The Bottom Line

Thailand’s AI regulatory moment has arrived, not with a bang, but with the steady, deliberate accumulation of frameworks, guidelines, sector rules, and now a dedicated oversight institution. The national framework will take time to enact, but the direction is set, and the pace is quickening.

For businesses operating in Thailand, the message from Baker McKenzie is both simple and urgent: the time to build AI governance infrastructure is now, not when the ink dries on legislation, but while there is still space to shape internal culture, update documentation, and get ahead of what will inevitably become mandatory.

Those who treat this moment as a preview rather than a warning will have a significant competitive and legal advantage when Thailand’s AI regulatory architecture reaches full force.

Other People are Reading

Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Thursday said that while the U.S. Navy may soon be in a position to escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz to protect them from attacks by Iran, the Navy isn’t yet ready to do so.

Wright said in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that tanker escorts through the Strait of Hormuz – a vital chokepoint in the shipping lanes through the Persian Gulf – will be on the table in the near future as the air campaign against Iran’s military capabilities continues. Shipping traffic in the strait has largely ground to a halt due to the risk of Iranian attacks.

“It’ll happen relatively soon, but it can’t happen now,” Wright said in the interview. “We’re simply not ready. All of our military assets right now are focused on destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities and the manufacturing industry that supplies their offensive capabilities.”

The energy secretary was asked in the interview whether the Navy would be in a position to begin escorting tankers through the strait by the end of this month and Wright responded, “Yes, I think that is quite likely the case.”

CARGO SHIP STRUCK IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ AMID IRAN WAR

“Again, I’ll be over at the Pentagon later today. But that is what the military is working on and, yes, a lot of critical materials come out of the Strait of Hormuz,” Wright told CNBC.

“We have a large global economy. Fortunately, with President Trump’s policies, we’re a net exporter of oil, we’re a net exporter of natural gas, and in fact we’re growing our net exports of natural gas this spring, this summer. You’ll see massively more capacity online by the end of this year,” he added.

OIL SPIKE FADES AS MARKETS REASSESS IRAN WAR SUPPLY RISKS

Wright said in the interview that the Trump administration doesn’t want the Iran campaign to be a “brush off for a year or two” and wants to “permanently destroy their ability to build missiles, to build drones, to have a nuclear program.”

“It is short-term pain for the long-term gain, but it’s simply a must-achieve thing. Otherwise, you’ve got decades into the future of an Iran that can hold the world hostage whenever it wants,” he added.

HOW THE IRAN WAR COULD HIT AMERICANS’ GROCERY BILLS

The energy secretary’s comments come after a subsequently deleted social media post on his X account indicated that the “U.S. Navy successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure oil remains flowing to global markets.”

However, the post was taken down and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed during a briefing that the “U.S. Navy has not escorted a tanker or vessel at this time. Though, of course, that is an option the president has said he will absolutely utilize if and when necessary at the appropriate time.”

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Oil prices have surged amid the conflict with Iran, with prices briefly rising near $115 a barrel before declining and trading between about $80 and $95 a barrel this week.

Gasoline prices have also spiked, with AAA reporting the national average price for a gallon of gas rose to $3.598 a gallon as of Thursday – up from $2.944 a gallon a month ago.

In the Nifty500 pack, eight stocks’ closing prices crossed above their 200 DMA (Daily Moving Averages) on March 12, 2026, according to stockedge.com’s technical scan data. Traders use the 200-day daily moving average (DMA) as a key indicator to determine the overall trend in a particular stock. As long as the stock is priced above the 200-day SMA on the daily timeframe, it is generally considered to be in an overall uptrend. Take a look:

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Following a massive surge of nearly 10% on Thursday, crude oil prices slipped on Friday morning after the U.S. issued a 30-day license allowing countries to purchase Russian oil and petroleum cargoes that are currently stranded at sea, easing immediate supply worries.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the temporary license was intended to help stabilise global energy markets that have been unsettled by the war in Iran.

Crude oil price on March 13

Brent futures fell 71 cents, or 0.71%, to $99.75 a barrel at 0123 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude declined 88 cents, or 0.92%, to $94.85.The decision on Russian oil came a day after the U.S. Energy Department announced that the United States would release 172 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to cool surging oil prices following the conflict in Iran. The move is part of a coordinated effort with the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has agreed to release a record 400 million barrels from strategic stockpiles, including the U.S. share.

Are worries over?

Tensions in the region remain high. Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said the country would continue the fight and keep the Strait of Hormuz closed as leverage against the United States and Israel.
Security risks have also increased. Iraqi security officials said two fuel tankers in Iraqi waters were struck by explosive-laden Iranian boats on Thursday. An Iraqi official told state media that the country’s oil ports have completely halted operations, Reuters reported.Iran warned that global oil prices could climb to $200 per barrel after its forces struck merchant ships earlier this week.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who has not committed to a timeline for military operations, said that he was not yet ready to call an end to the war.

Uncertainty over how quickly the additional oil will reach the market has also weighed on sentiment. While the IEA’s move represents an unprecedented intervention, the agency did not specify the pace at which individual countries will release their reserves or how the oil will be distributed.

Concerns over a prolonged conflict are also overshadowing the IEA’s move. Iran has told regional intermediaries that any ceasefire would require the US to guarantee that neither it nor Israel will carry out future attacks on the country, recognise Iran’s rights, and fund reparations for the damage caused during the war. However, Bloomberg reported that Washington is unlikely to accept these conditions.

At the same time, steps are being considered to limit the disruption. Scott Bessent told Sky News that the U.S. Navy, possibly alongside an international coalition, could escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz when it becomes militarily feasible.

Saudi Arabia is reportedly paying a premium to reroute tankers through the Red Sea, using its East-West pipeline to move oil to global markets. Meanwhile, Iran is allowing one or two tankers a day to pass through the strait, mainly shipments headed to China, helping maintain some cash flow while keeping China on its side.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)