Self-certification is allowed in the country for radio transmission, electromagnetic interference (EMI) or electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). Taiwan allows foreign companies to self-certify that they comply with these standards, through a Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDoC). The supplier or manufacturer of the equipment declares the equipment meets the technical and administrative requirements on the basis of test reports by a testing laboratory recognized by the regulator. No registration of the equipment with the regulator is required.

Art. 18 of the Regulations Governing Internal Operating Systems and Procedures for the Outsourcing of Financial Institution Operation (Regulations) deals with conditions upon which a financial institution may outsource its operations to overseas service providers. The financial institution must obtain a confirmation letter from the financial authority of the country where the outsourced services are conducted agreeing to the outsourcing operations. A foreign bank branch in Taiwan, on top of the confirmation letter, shall obtain the letter of consent authorised by its head office or regional head office to the obtainment and use on data, security control and cooperation with the supervisory requirements in Taiwan.
If the financial institution cannot obtain the letter of confirmation from the foreign financial authority, it must submit the following documents to the Financial Supervisory Commission:
- A letter of consent from the service provider, agreeing that where necessary, a person designated by the financial institution may examine the outsourced items. The aforesaid designated person may also be assigned by the competent authority at the expense of the financial institution;
- The evaluation of internal control principles and operating procedure of the service provider;
- The legal opinion indicates the protection of customer data where the service provider is located is not below the condition in Taiwan;
- The financial statements of the service provider audited and attested by a CPA for the most recent fiscal year;
- A statement issued by the service provider certifying that no violation of customer interests, personnel malpractice, information and technology security, or other occurrences have impacted sound business operations in the last three years.

Taiwan has not joined any agreement with binding commitments to open transfers of data across borders.

The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) establishes a comprehensive framework for data protection in Taiwan. Initially introduced in 1995, the Act underwent significant amendments in 2010, including a name change, with the revised version coming into force in 2012. The Enforcement Rules of the Personal Data Protection Act provide further guidelines for the interpretation and implementation of the Act. The enforcement of the PDPA is carried out by ministries, commissions, and local governments. However, due to the decentralised enforcement structure, challenges have arisen. To address these issues and to establish an independent supervisory mechanism for data protection by August 2025, as mandated by the Constitutional Court's 111-Shien-Pan-13 judgement, the Legislative Yuan passed amendments to the Act on 16 May 2023. Article 1-1 of the amended PDPA specifies that the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) will serve as the competent authority for the Act, consolidating enforcement powers previously dispersed among ministries, commissions, and local governments. Following six months of preparation, the Preparatory Office of the PDPC was established on 5 December 2023, assuming responsibility for interpreting the Act from the National Development Council as of 1 January 2024.

Art. 9 of the Telecommunications Management Act requires telecom enterprises to retain communications records such as the numbers of the sender and the recipient, time of communication, address, service type, mailbox or location information. The Regulations on Users of Telecommunications Businesses Inquiring Communication and Account Records were established in accordance with the stipulations of Paragraph 3, Art. 9 of the Telecommunications Management Act. Under Art. 4 of the Regulations, telecommunications enterprises must retain communication records and accounting records for at least one year.

Under Art. 22 of the Personal Data Protection Act (1995), the government may, when they deem necessary or suspect any possible violation of the Act, (a) inspect compliance with the security control measures, the guidelines on disposing of personal data upon business termination, and the restrictions on cross-border transfers, or (b) conduct any other routine inspections by having their staff enter non-government agencies' premises upon presentation of their official identification documents and order relevant personnel at the non-government agencies.
In doing so, the government may retain or make duplications of the personal data or the files thereof that can be confiscated or be admitted as evidence. The owner, holder or keeper of such data or files that shall be confiscated or copied shall submit them to the authorities upon request. If the non-government agency refuses to submit or deliver the requested data or files or rejects the confiscation or duplication thereof without any legitimate reason, compulsory enforcement that will do the least harm to the rights and interests of the non-government agency may be applied.

For law enforcement agencies to access the content of communications, they need either interception warrants or access warrants approved by a court. However, in urgent situations or for specific crimes, the agencies may access the communications without a warrant as long as they obtain it within 24 hours after the surveillance under the Communications Security and Surveillance Act (Art. 11-1). According to a report from the Ministry of Justice, more than 90% of surveillance cases did not require approval from a court. It is reported that the lack of judicial review over surveillance requests has been increasingly normalised.

It is reported that government units with certain investigative powers have gone directly to state agencies and private companies to request personal data without first receiving a court order or other oversight. For example, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, between 2017 and 2018, had a 100% success rate in receiving information from the 1,112 requests it filed for personal information. Of these, 1,000 requests were to non-government agencies, including Chunghwa Telecom, Taiwan Mobile CO., and Yahoo! Taiwan Holdings Limited. Between 2015 and 2016, the Ministry of Finance submitted 350 requests with a 99.4 percent success rate. The Criminal Investigation Bureau also reportedly issued 565 requests to Facebook through this process, with a 52.9% success rate, between 2015 and 2016.

The Copyright Act, as amended in 2009 with the introduction of Arts. 90-4 to 90-12, establishes a safe harbour regime for intermediaries for copyright infringements. They largely follow the framework of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Internet service providers are divided into four categories with different conditions of eligibility of limitation on liability: connection service providers, caching service providers, information storage service providers, and search service providers.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability beyond copyright infringement is absent in Taiwan's law and jurisprudence.

Pursuant to Art. 8 of the Regulations on the Preparation and Management of Electronic Medical Records by Medical Institutions, when a medical institution utilises cloud services to collect, process, and use electronic medical records, the data storage location of the cloud service should, in principle, be situated in Taiwan.

Under Art. 21 of the Personal Data Protection Act (1995), the government may impose restrictions on a cross-border transfer of personal data by a non-government agency if (a) major national interests are involved, (b) an international treaty or agreement so stipulates, (c) the country receiving the data lacks proper regulations on protection of personal data and the data subjects' rights and interests may be consequently harmed, or (d) the transfer to a third country is carried out to circumvent the Act.

Under Art. 25 of the Patent Act (enacted in 1994), the application form must be filled out in traditional Chinese, including the description, claim(s) and drawing(s). Initially, the description, claim(s), and drawing(s) may be submitted in Arabic, English, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. A Chinese translation for the said documents must be submitted within a specified period, or the patent application shall be dismissed. In addition, according to Art. 11 of the Act, an applicant who has no domicile or business establishment in the territory of China shall designate an agent to file patent applications and handle patent-related matters on his/her behalf. Eligible agents shall be limited to patent attorneys unless otherwise provided for by laws and regulations. Furthermore, non-residents cannot make a payment of any fees directly to the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office by any means, whether it be payment by bank account transfer, credit card, or check. The payment has to be made by an appointed representative, either residing or domiciled in Taiwan, such as a patent attorney.

Taiwan is not a party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). However, any applicant from a WTO member who files a patent application in Taiwan based on a PCT application may claim a right of priority if the PCT application is a legal application.

The Copyright Act provides a clear regime of copyright exceptions that follows the fair use model, which enables the lawful use of copyrighted work by others without obtaining permission. Art. 65, as amended in July 2003, lists the acts that shall be noted as the basis for the determination of fair use. In determining whether the exploitation of work complies with the reasonable scope or other conditions of fair use, all circumstances shall be taken into account, and in particular, the following facts shall be noted as the basis for determination: (i) the purposes and nature of the exploitation, including whether such exploitation is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (ii) the nature of the work; (iii) the amount and substantiality of the portion exploited in relation to the work as a whole; (iv) effect of the exploitation on the work's current and potential market value.