Slovakia and the European Union have adopted the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty. Slovakia ratified the Treaty on 14 January 2000, with its provisions coming into force on 6 March 2002. Subsequently, the European Union ratified the Treaty on 14 December 2009, and it entered into effect on 14 March 2010.

Slovakia and the European Union have adopted the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Slovakia ratified the Treaty on 14 January 2000, with its provisions coming into force on 20 May 2002. Subsequently, the European Union ratified the Treaty on 14 December 2009, and it entered into effect on 14 March 2010.

The Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) is key in harmonising national laws concerning trade secrets. Slovakia fully implemented the Directive with Act No 264/2017, amending the existing Commercial Code.

It is reported that passive sharing is mandated in Slovakia, and it is practised in the mobile and fixed sectors based on commercial agreements. In addition, Art. 3.2 of the Directive 2014/61/EU establishes that Member States shall ensure that, upon written request of an undertaking providing or authorised to provide public communications networks, any network operator must meet all reasonable requests for access to its physical infrastructure under fair and reasonable terms and conditions, including price, with a view to deploying elements of high-speed electronic communications networks. Such written request shall specify the elements of the project for which the access is requested, including a specific time frame.

The Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU provides an updated framework aimed at encouraging online sales. The Directive has been implemented by Law No. 363/2007 on unfair commercial practices of traders in relation to consumers and harmonising the regulations with the European legislation on consumer protection.

Romania has not signed the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts.

Romania has not adopted national legislation based on or influenced by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce.

Romania has not adopted national legislation based on or influenced by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Signatures.

The EU Directive on Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) covers traditional broadcasting services as well as audiovisual media services provided on-demand, including via the Internet. Art. 13.1 provides for Member States to secure a minimum 30% share of European works in the catalogues as well as "ensuring prominence" of those works. "Prominence" involves promoting European works by facilitating access to such works using any appropriate means to ensure their prominence. The Directive has been implemented by Member States in different ways, ranging from very extensive and detailed measures to a mere reference to the general obligation to promote European works.
In Romania, the EU Directive was transposed into domestic law through the amendment of the Audiovisual Law of June 2022 (Law No. 190 of June 28, 2022). According to Art. 23 of the Law, providers of on-demand audiovisual media services in Romania are required to allocate at least 30% of their catalogues to European works, thereby ensuring their effective promotion. Promotion strategies may encompass dedicated sections on the homepage, enhanced search functionality, and marketing campaigns that feature European works. The Member State of jurisdiction is responsible for enforcing compliance when the provider operates multiple national catalogues. However, this obligation does not apply to providers with a turnover below EUR 2 million.
Furthermore, Art. 13 of Ordinance No. 39 of 14 July 2005 establishes the financial requirements applicable to VOD service providers to ensure they possess the necessary financial means for the development of cinematographic activity, as well as to fulfil the functions of the National Cinematography Centre.

In 2021, the Romanian government approved Law No. 163 of 11 June 2021 on the adoption of measures on information and communication infrastructures of national interest and conditions for the deployment of 5G networks, requiring suppliers to have approval from the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT) to sell 5G equipment (Art. 3). The legislation states that equipment from untrusted vendors must be replaced by 2026 (core network) and 2028 (RAN equipment). To provide 5G equipment in Romanian mobile networks after 2026 (Core) / 2028 (RAN), the vendor must apply to the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT) for approval. It is reported that from 2021 until 2024, Huawei chose not to apply for such a permit. Given that Huawei has not received CSAT approval, Romanian telecom companies would have to remove all Huawei products from their networks within five to seven years, and the major Chinese firm is excluded from taking part in the development of the 5G network.

It is reported that the Autoritatea Naţională pentru Administrare şi Reglementare în Comunicaţii (ANCR), the executive authority for the supervision and administration of services in the telecommunications sector, is independent from the government in the decision-making process.

According to Art. 15 of Emergency Ordinance No. 77, in order to conduct remote gambling activities, the gaming server is required to have a registration system capable of identifying the gamers as well as a system which stores and transmits data to a backup server which is situated on Romanian territory. The gaming server has to be approved by the National Gambling Office (Oficiul National pentru Jocuri de Noroc, ONJN) and in compliance with the procedure established under the implementing rules of the Emergency Ordinance. In addition, the game server and the backup server must store all data, including the registration and identification of players, the stakes placed and the winnings paid out, for a period of five years after the prescription deadline in relation to the repayment of public debts related to this data.
Furthermore, Art. 15 provides that the communications equipment, other than one of the suppliers of electronic communication services and networks defined in the Government Emergency Ordinance No. 111/2011, must record the geographical location of the IP addresses as well as identify the date, time and the duration of a game session once they have registered as a participant in a game on the organiser's website. The data must be stored for a period of a minimum of five years from the date of collection and processing. Moreover, such equipment, as well as the central location at which the organiser's central ICT system, is to be installed on Romanian territory or the territory of another EU Member State or another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area or in the Swiss Confederation.

The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides a comprehensive framework for data protection that applies to all EU Member States. The GDPR was implemented in Romania in 2018 through the Law No. 190/2018 Implementing the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679).

The Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive) is the legal basis governing the liability of Internet Services Providers (ISPs) in the EU Member States and includes a conditional safe harbour. Not all Member States have transposed the relevant articles consistently, leading to divergent national case law that could cause legal insecurity on an EU level.
The national transposition by Romania of Directive 2000/31/EC has been carried out through the E-commerce Act. Arts. 11-15 of the law outlines the liability scheme for internet intermediaries. The law largely follows the European Union E-Commerce 'safe harbours' model, immunising intermediaries when they act as a mere conduit or when they cache or host material. Intermediaries remain liable if they are the originators of the information, if they modify the information or if they are aware of the infringing nature of the information. While there is no general monitoring duty imposed on intermediaries, once they are made aware of the infringing content, they must remove it from their platform' rapidly. Art. 16 further provides that the legal remedy brought against these intermediaries is either a take-down or a blocking order (both temporary and permanent injunctive remedies are permitted).
The law differs from the EU model in two primary respects. The law does not use the term ‘internet intermediary’; instead, it identifies specific types of ‘service provider[s]’, suggesting a more nuanced view of the online environment. This enables the law to go further than the EU E-Commerce Directive. Specifically, Art. 15 explicitly extends the internet intermediary liability protection to search engines, which are not considered in the EU directive. Search engines are similarly liable if they fail to block illegal content once they have been made aware of it.

The Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive) is the legal basis governing the liability of Internet Services Providers (ISPs) in the EU Member States and includes a conditional safe harbour. Not all Member States have transposed the relevant articles consistently, leading to divergent national case law that could cause legal insecurity on an EU level.
The national transposition by Romania of Directive 2000/31/EC has been carried out through the E-commerce Act. Arts. 11-15 of the law outlines the liability scheme for internet intermediaries. The law largely follows the European Union E-Commerce 'safe harbours' model, immunising intermediaries when they act as a mere conduit or when they cache or host material. Intermediaries remain liable if they are the originators of the information, if they modify the information or if they are aware of the infringing nature of the information. While there is no general monitoring duty imposed on intermediaries, once they are made aware of the infringing content, they must remove it from their platform' rapidly. Art. 16 further provides that the legal remedy brought against these intermediaries is either a take-down or a blocking order (both temporary and permanent injunctive remedies are permitted).
The law differs from the EU model in two primary respects. The law does not use the term ‘internet intermediary’; instead, it identifies specific types of ‘service provider[s]’, suggesting a more nuanced view of the online environment. This enables the law to go further than the EU E-Commerce Directive. Specifically, Art. 15 explicitly extends the internet intermediary liability protection to search engines, which are not considered in the EU directive. Search engines are similarly liable if they fail to block illegal content once they have been made aware of it.