It is reported that starting in 2019, Nicaragua’s Customs Authority (DGA) began systematically seeking proof of country of origin for products that had previously been established to have an origin country, including through a comprehensive questionnaire to importers seeking detailed information about the products. Multiple businesses have reported that the requested information includes proprietary business data or trade secrets. Businesses have sought to make arrangements with the DGA to establish proof of origin without publishing trade secrets in questionnaires, such as through site visits to production plants and staff interviews. However, it is reported that the DGA has rejected those proposals and, in multiple cases, has initiated administrative processes to remove preferential treatment and also seek retroactive tariffs for the time that the product was imported with preferential treatment.

It is reported that Nicaraguan customs officials routinely delay customs inspections and levy arbitrary fines for minor paperwork problems such as typographical errors. These fines reportedly often represent up to three times the value of the shipment. In addition, businesses report a significant increase in the number of incoming shipments subject to further inspections, with a majority of shipments now subject to such inspections.

It is reported that some ICT goods, including wireless gateways, satellite equipment and telephones, require type approval and certification in Nicaragua. Companies can use existing international test reports for the homologation process to obtain Nicaraguan Institute of Telecommunications and Postal Services (TELCOR) approval. Technical documents will be reviewed and validated in the approval process.

Nicaragua does not implement any de minimis threshold, which is the minimum value of goods below which customs do not charge duties.

Nicaragua has not joined any free trade agreement committing to open transfers of cross-border data flows.

The Personal Data Protection Law and the regulation of such law constitute the framework for data protection. Moreover, the Political Constitution of Nicaragua also provides certain general rights concerning privacy and data collection.

According to Art. 19 of the Personal Data Protection Law, all personal data shall be kept for five years, or for the term that the parties agree upon, even in the event of the personal data no longer being adequate, proportional, or necessary for the purposes that it was created.

According to Art. 36 of Law No. 1042, telecom providers must retain data for all users for one year. A local judge may issue an order, at the National Police or Prosecutor General’s request, to force internet providers to release specific information about an individual customer, as well as collect, extract, or record data about this customer, such as real-time data traffic.
As part of the implementation of Law No. 1042, the "Instituto Nicaragüense de Telecomunicaciones y Correos" (TELCOR, Nicaraguan Institute of Telecommunications and Postal Services) published the Administrative Agreement 001-2021 on Regulations for the Preservation of Data and Information. Art. 3 requires telecommunications companies to collect and preserve any data necessary to trace a communication; identify the recipient of a communication; identify the time, date, and duration of a communication; identify the type of communication, such as mobile phone, internet, or landline phone; identify the equipment used to conduct a communication; and identify the geolocation of the equipment used for communication. In addition, companies offering community repeaters and trunk links must be able to submit information on the services they provide. Art. 5 of the agreement further requires companies to store the relevant information for up to 12 months.

Pursuant to Art. 65 of Law No. 735, service providers are obligated to design their systems in a manner that facilitates surveillance. Additionally, Art. 65 mandates that companies maintain a record of their users, which must be accessible to authorities involved in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. These requirements extend to both private and public entities providing telephone, computer, or other electronic communication services. Art. 45 of the Regulation of Law No. 735 specifies that the official register referenced in Art. 65 must include, at a minimum, the following information:
- The date, time, and location at which the service is provided;
- The client’s or user’s full name, along with their national identity card number, valid passport number, or student card number;
- The client’s or user’s address and telephone number;
- Identification of the service provided.
Furthermore, Art. 45 stipulates that police authorities and the Public Prosecutor's Office shall have access to this register without additional formalities as part of their official duties and powers.

It is reported that a basic legal framework on intermediary liability for copyright infringement is absent in Nicaragua's law and jurisprudence.

Nicaragua has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability beyond copyright infringement is absent in Nicaragua's law and jurisprudence. Moreover, the 2020 Special Cybercrimes Law contains significant punishments for online activities and is applicable to social media users and media outlets. The law allows the punishment of administrators of technological platforms that intervene in the content (Art. 16). It is reported that the use of vague and undefined terms that can be applied arbitrarily or discretionally, resulting in legal uncertainty about its scope.

Nicaragua has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonogram Treaty.

It is reported that starting in 2019, Nicaragua’s Customs Authority (DGA) began systematically seeking proof of country of origin of products that had previously been established to originate in the United States, including through a comprehensive questionnaire to importers seeking detailed information about the products. Multiple businesses have reported that the requested information includes proprietary business data or trade secrets. Businesses have sought to make arrangements with the DGA to establish proof of origin without publishing trade secrets in questionnaires, such as through site visits to production plants and staff interviews. However, it is reported that the DGA has rejected those proposals and, in multiple cases, has initiated administrative processes to remove preferential treatment and also seek retroactive tariffs for the time that the product was imported with preferential treatment.

Law No. 354 provides a framework for the effective protection of trade secrets. The Chapter XVIII of the Law consists of the regulation of unfair competition, which involves the definition and protection of trade secrets.