Under Art. 12 of the Personal Data Protection Law and Art. 12 of its implementing Regulations, Argentina prohibits the transfer of personal data to countries or international entities that do not guarantee an adequate level of protection. Exceptions apply in specific circumstances, including international judicial cooperation, healthcare purposes or anonymised data for epidemiological studies, financial transactions, compliance with international treaties, cooperation between intelligence agencies in combating organised crime and terrorism, and where the data subject has provided explicit consent. Art. 3 of Regulation No. 60-E/2016 provides a list of jurisdictions deemed adequate, which includes EU and EEA Member States, the UK (which was added to the list with an amendment in 2019), Switzerland, Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man, the Faroe Islands, Canada (only for the private sector), Andorra, New Zealand, Uruguay, and Israel (only in relation to the data handled automatically). It is reported that, in 2025, Argentina formally recognised the United States as an adequate jurisdiction under Argentine law for the purposes of cross-border data transfers, including those involving personal data. Under Art. 1, for transfers to non-adequate jurisdictions, the standard contractual clauses approved by the "Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública" (AAIP) must be implemented. Complementary regulations provide additional mechanisms for lawful transfers. Regulation No. 198/2023 recognises the Ibero-American Network’s standard contractual clauses as valid safeguards, while Regulation No. 159/2018 establishes requirements for binding corporate rules (BCRs) applicable to intra-group transfers to non-adequate jurisdictions.

Argentina has joined agreements with binding commitments to open transfers of data across borders. According to the Art. 11.6 of the Trade Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile, the Parties recognise that each Party may have its own regulatory requirements on the transfer of information by electronic means. Each Party shall permit the cross-border transfer of information by electronic means, where such activity is for the conduct of the business of a person of a Party. The Parties may establish restrictions on the cross-border transfer of information by electronic means to achieve a legitimate public policy objective, provided that the measure is not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.
In addition, Art. 7.2 of the Mercosur Agreement on Electronic Commerce stipulates that each Member State shall permit the cross-border transfer of information through electronic means, provided that such transfer is undertaken for the purpose of carrying out the commercial activities of a person or entity belonging to a Member State.

The Personal Data Protection Act, together with Decree No. 1558/2001, establishes a comprehensive framework for data protection in Argentina. This legislative regime applies to both public and private entities and governs processing activities conducted within Argentine territory. The Act delineates lawful bases for processing, including consent and contractual arrangements with data subjects. Also, it imposes specific obligations on controllers and processors, such as breach notification requirements and the mandatory registration of databases with the National Registry of Personal Databases, administered by the Argentine data protection authority (AAIP). The AAIP functions as the supervisory authority under the Act and demonstrates considerable regulatory activity, frequently issuing resolutions that interpret the legislation and provide compliance guidance.

Page 5 of the Guide on Data Protection Impact Assessments provides that it is a mandatory requirement for both controllers and processors to undertake a data protection impact assessment.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability for copyright infringement is absent in Argentina's law and jurisprudence.. However, certain Argentine Civil Code and Intellectual Property Law articles are used as references for court cases and decisions. For example, in some cases the courts have found that ISPs are only liable if they have acted with ‘malice or negligence’ (see Rodríguez v. Google in 2014). Courts have developed a series of tests in specific cases that provide some minimal protection.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability beyond copyright infringement is absent in Argentina's law and jurisprudence. However, certain articles of the Argentine Civil Code and Intellectual Property Law are used as references for court cases and decisions. For example, in some cases, the courts have found that ISPs are only liable if they have acted with ‘malice or negligence’ (see Rodríguez v. Google in 2014). Courts have developed a series of tests in specific cases that provide some minimal protection.

Art. 3 of the "Regulation for the Collection of Personal Data and Identity Validation of Users of Mobile Services that Hold a Mobile Number" requires mobile communication service providers to establish a system for the nomination and verification of registered users’ identities, either in person or remotely, by the providers themselves or through authorised third parties, in accordance with the Regolution’s provisions governing registration. In addition, Art. 7 mandates that, for identity validation, whether conducted remotely or at customer service centres, providers must request the individual’s national identity card and gender and implement appropriate mechanisms to verify these details prior to activating the service.

Argentina is not a party to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). However, the country has been an observer of the WTO GPA since 1997.

Arts. 2 and 3 of Law No. 25.750 stipulate that foreign equity ownership in digital content producers and Internet service providers may not exceed 30%. This limit may be exceeded in the event of a reciprocity agreement. There is no definition of digital content producers in the law. In addition, Art. 13 of Law No. 27.078 provides that ENACOM (Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones, National Communications Entity) must approve any proposed changes to shareholdings or partnership interests in companies in this sector if such changes would affect the control of the company.

Art. 7 of Act No. 26.092 stipulates that 98% of the shareholding in the Argentine Company of Satellite Solutions (ARSAT) shall be allocated to the Ministry of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services, while the remaining 2% shall correspond to the Ministry of Economy and Production. Pursuant to Art. 7 of the Annex, Class A shares shall be held by the national government, and these shares may not be transferred except with the authorisation of a statute enacted by Congress, as they embody the State’s controlling interest. Consequently, 51% of the shares are designated as Class A and are State-owned, whereas the remainder could, in principle, be admitted to public trading. Reports indicate that ARSAT intends to undertake a public offering of shares to divest 49% of the company’s equity to the private sector; however, as of 2025, this has not yet materialised.

According to Art. 256 of the Corporations Law, the majority of the board members of all companies must be residents of Argentina. In addition, all directors must establish a special domicile for the purposes of notification.

Art. 3 of the "Law on Patents for Inventions and Utility Models" stipulates that the industrial property rights governed by this legislation may be acquired by natural or legal persons, whether domestic or foreign, provided they possess either an actual or a registered domicile within the country. In addition, Art. 69 prescribes that, in all applications, the applicant is required to establish a legal domicile within the national territory and to notify the National Patent Administration of any subsequent changes thereto.

According to Art. 37 of the Patent Law, patent protection can only be obtained by filing separate national patent applications, but it may be endangered if the application for obtaining the same patent in another country was filed more than one year before the Argentinian filing date and/or it has already been published (Art. 13). In those cases, since Argentina adopts absolute novelty, the novelty requirement will not be fulfilled, and a patent will be denied.

It is reported that stakeholders emphasise substantial delays in the processing of patent applications, averaging seven to eight years. It is further reported that the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) operates with a limited number of patent examiners, with resource constraints posing significant challenges to recruitment and retention.

Argentina signed the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in December 1970 but has not ratified it.