Art. 82 of Law No. 23-12 stipulates that foreign companies that submit bids alone unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise, must subcontract at least 30% of the initial contract amount to companies that are legally domiciled in Algeria. The aforementioned requirement was already in force in Art. 85 of Presidential Decree No. 15/247 since 2015, which is still in force pending the adoption of a regulation for Law No. 23-12.

Art. 58 of Law No. 23-12 stipulates that contracting authorities must reserve a maximum of 20% of contracts for small or micro-enterprises, start-ups, or any entity designated as such.

Art. 64 of Law No. 23-12 stipulates that the specifications for international calls for competition must provide foreign bidders or subcontractors with a minimum threshold of professional integration of the national workforce and qualified national executives.

Art. 60 of Law No. 23-12 stipulates that when the contracting authority initiates a national and/or international competitive tender process, it must include a system to guarantee the provision of training and the transfer of technology and know-how in relation to the subject of the contract.

Algeria is not a party to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), nor does it have observer status, as it is not a member of the WTO.

Art. 4 of the Law on Audiovisual Activity restricts the operation of online audiovisual services to Algerian legal entities whose share capital is held exclusively by Algerian natural persons or by Algerian legal entities composed entirely of Algerian shareholders, thereby excluding any form of foreign ownership or participation.

According to Art. 111 bis of Law No. 7.557 on General Customs, introduced in June 2022 by Art. 1.8 of Law No. 10271, the importation of goods whose total value does not exceed the threshold of 100 Central American pesos (equivalent to USD 100) are exempt from import duties. This threshold is lower than the USD 200 threshold recommended by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

Law No. 7472 and its accompanying Regulations establish a comprehensive framework for consumer protection that extends to transactions conducted online.

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

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

Costa Rica has enacted national legislation based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Signatures, namely Law No. 8454 on Certificates, Digital Signatures and Electronic Documents.

Under the "Procedure for the Approval of Mobile Telecommunications Devices", companies seeking to have their mobile phones certified must submit the devices for testing to experts accredited by the Telecommunications Superintendence (SUTEL)

Costa Rica has joined trade agreements covering cooperation commitments on open transfers of cross-border data flows. However, none of these commitments includes binding rules on cross-border data transfers. These include:
- Art. 15.5.d of the Tratado de Libre Comercio entre los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y las Repúblicas de Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua;
- Art. 16.7.c of the Tratado de Libre Comercio entre la República de Colombia y la República de Costa Rica.

Law No. 8968 and Executive Decree No. 37554-JP establish a comprehensive framework for data protection in Costa Rica. The Costa Rican Data Protection Authority (PRODHAB) is the body charged with overseeing and enforcing compliance with the Law.

Costa Rica has a safe harbour regime in place for intermediaries for copyright infringements. Executive Decree No. 36.880 implements Art. 15.11.27 of the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), establishing limitations on liability for service providers for copyright only. Pursuant to the Decree, users who believe their rights have been violated should communicate with the service provider, who has 15 days to take down the content. Takedowns can also occur through a judicial order. The system has been criticised for ambiguity, as the limited intermediary liability applies to service providers who voluntarily abide by the rule.