Rwanda has not signed the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty.

Rwanda has not signed the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

Law No. 055/2024 on the Protection of Intellectual Property provides a framework for the effective protection of trade secrets. According to Art. 276, any act or practice, in the course of industrial or commercial activities, that results in the disclosure, acquisition, or use by others of secret information without the consent of the rightful holder and in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices constitutes an act of unfair competition. Under Art. 277 of the Law, an intellectual property owner harmed, or likely to be harmed, by an act of unfair competition has the right to initiate civil proceedings before the competent court or to request the cessation of such an act where, through an act contrary to honest industrial and commercial use, a manufacturer, trader, producer, or craftsman damages his or her credibility, takes away his or her customers, or harms his or her capacity for competition. Furthermore, as specified in Art. 380, any person who performs an act of unfair competition with respect to intellectual property commits an offence. Upon conviction, he or she is liable to a fine of not less than FRW 7,000,000 (approx. USD 5,300) but not more than FRW 10,000,000 (approx. USD 7,600).

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 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.

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.

Art. 17 of Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive) mandates that providers of content-sharing services seek authorisation from rights holders and implement technical solutions to remove and prevent unauthorised uploads by their users (so-called upload filters), under penalty of losing their liability safe harbour. Further arrangements are envisaged for complaints and dispute resolution mechanisms. Such upload filters are reported to be a significant cost for online platforms. Graduated exemptions are expected to be put in place for new providers active in the EU for less than three years, with a turnover under EUR 10 million and with fewer than five million users. The provision is subject to a challenge in the Court of Justice by Poland (C-401/19).
To implement Directive 2019/790, the President promulgated Law No. 69 Amending and Supplementing Law No. 8/1996 on Copyright and Related Rights , therefore making online content-sharing service providers partially liable for copyright violations on their platforms.

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.

Trade secrets are protected in Romania, especially by Law No. 11/1991 on combating unfair competition. In April 2019, Romania adopted Government Emergency Ordinance No. 25, which protects undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against unlawful acquisition, use, and disclosure in compliance with Directive (EU) 2016/943.
The law defines and protects trade secrets by reference to Law No. 11/1991 and information that is not generally known or easily accessible, which is valuable because it is secret and its owner has taken reasonable measures to ensure its secrecy. Protection covers its divulgation, acquisition and use without the owner's consent. Exceptions are specifically provided in certain cases and under clear conditions for:
- Exercising the right to freedom of expression;
- Revealing misconduct, wrongdoing or illegal activity;
- Disclosure by workers to their representatives as part of the legitimate exercise by those representatives of their functions.

It is reported that passive sharing is mandated in Romania, 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.

It is reported that Romania does not mandate functional separation for operators with significant market power (SMP) in the telecom market. However, accounting separation is required by law.