It is reported by IP Agency Lasvet that court proceedings for patent litigation are often cumbersome and time-consuming, and that there is a lack of technical know-how on IP issues in the country's court system. This is despite Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which states that Member States shall provide the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of the intellectual property rights covered by this Directive. Those measures, procedures and remedies shall be fair and equitable and shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly or entail unreasonable time limits or unwarranted delays. Estonia transposed the Directive through a series of amendments to existing legislation in 2006.

Estonia is a party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

TikTok was reportedly banned from the work phones of state officials in Estonia in March 2023.

Art. 85 of the Utilities Directive (2014/25/EU) contains provisions allowing contracting public entities to reject foreign goods not covered by any EU international commitments from its tender procedures. In these cases, a tender submitted for the award of a supply contract may be rejected where the proportion of the products originating in third countries exceeds 50% of the total value of the products constituting the tender (Art. 85.2). Additionally, in cases of equivalent offers, the provisions provide for a preference for European tenders and tenders covered by EU's international obligations. In practice, this possibility has rarely been used. In Estonia, the Directive has been transposed with the Public Procurement Act.

The Public Procurement Act (PPA) 2017 § 11.1 provides for a general principle (2) that the contracting authority treats the following entities equally: all persons whose place of residence or seat is in: Estonia, in another Member State of the European Union, in another contracting state of the European Economic Area, or signatory of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. Therefore, other countries are not given the same treatment.
Moreover, subchapter 3 of the Act stipulates that the contracting authority is not required to apply the rules of the Act if the main purpose of awarding a public contract is to provide or exploit public communications networks or to provide to the public an electronic communications service.

It is reported that Estonia’s government has not set limitations on foreign ownership.

According to Art. 4 of the Proclamation No. 173 of 2013 and Arts. 33-36 of Proclamation No. 32 of 1993, all payments in the country are required to be in local currency, therefore requiring foreign firms to use local currency and payment methods in local currency.

It is reported that Eritrea’s legislation rigorously regulates capital flows, including the payment for the importation of goods and currency exchange, which results in a significant challenge for organisations in Eritrea to transfer foreign currency into or out of the country and to settle essential overseas bills. The National Bank of Eritrea is responsible for approving and managing all fund transfers into and out of the country and has the authority to disapprove a transfer. Furthermore, local funds are not freely convertible to any world currency. The exchange rate is determined by the government and does not fluctuate. In addition, it has been alleged that the government is in breach of Article VIII of the International Monetary Fund (IMP) with regard to restrictions on payments and transfers for international transactions.

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

Eritrea does not have any legal provisions regarding consumer protection that are applicable to online commerce.

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

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

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