Lebanon lacks a comprehensive legal framework for personal data protection, although there are certain regulatory provisions in this area. Law No. 81 of 10 October 2018 on Electronic Transaction and Personal Data (قانون رقم 81 المعاملات الالكترونية و البيانات ذات الطابع الشخصي) provides the basic legal structure for safeguarding personal data. Yet, the law does not establish an independent data protection authority, imposes relatively limited obligations on data controllers and processors, and omits a definition of consent or explicit provisions governing its requirement and conditions. Nonetheless, it incorporates specific privacy-related obligations, including data subjects’ rights, transparency requirements, information disclosure, data retention rules, and the handling of sensitive personal data, while also prescribing criminal penalties for breaches of its privacy provisions.

Art. 72 of Law on Electronic Transaction and Personal Data requires IT service providers to retain data relating to traffic generated by all individuals using their services. This obligation is intended to facilitate the identification of users and includes the preservation of other technical information associated with communications for a period of three years, beginning on the date the service is implemented. For the purposes of this provision, IT service providers include any business or organisation that enables users to access an electronic communications network and provides direct information transmission services. The term also applies to data hosts, which are systems used to store third-party information of any nature, whether free of charge or for remuneration, and to make such information publicly accessible through direct communication services.

It is reported that, in 2013, the office of the public prosecutor issued a directive requiring all internet service providers (ISPs) and internet cafés to retain communications data for a period of one year. The directive instructs all providers of landline and wireless internet services for residential and corporate use, as well as cafés and shops that supply clients with devices enabling internet access, to implement all necessary measures to activate and preserve Internet log files transmitted through their servers and routers. In addition, they are required to create periodic backup copies to safeguard these files against loss, ensuring their retention for a minimum duration of one year.

According to Art. 9 of the Telecommunication Interception Act, the interception of communications may be authorised by an administrative order issued by either the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Defence, subject to prior approval by the Prime Minister, for the purpose of gathering information aimed at combating terrorism, crimes against state security, and organised crime. To be lawful, such judicial or administrative interception orders must be in writing, duly justified, and should specify the means of communication subject to interception and the duration of interception, which may not exceed two months and cannot be extended except in accordance with the same rules and conditions. It is also reported that in recent years the cabinet has passed motions giving the security agencies temporary but unhindered access to all telecommunications metadata. Alfa and Touch, which are Lebanon’s two main mobile network operators and are owned by the government, are compelled to comply with these measures.

A basic legal framework on intermediary liability for copyright infringement is absent in Lebanon's law and jurisprudence. Nevertheless, Arts. 69 and 70 of Law No. 81 of 10 October 2018 on Electronic Transactions and Personal Data stipulate that network service providers are not bound to monitor information, and must promptly remove or block access to information they send or store temporarily upon the sender’s request or pursuant to a decision issued by a competent court, under penalty of law. Similarly, data hosts are required to remove or disable access to such information immediately once they become aware of its unlawful nature.

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

Lebanon lacks a comprehensive framework in place that provides effective protection of trade secrets, but there are limited measures addressing some issues related to them.
Art. 47 of the Patent Law penalises anyone who, by virtue of their position or profession, unlawfully discloses or uses secret industrial or commercial information for personal or third-party benefit. The article applies when the information was lawfully acquired, derives its value from being secret, and the owner has taken measures to maintain its secrecy.
Moreover, Art. 579 of the Lebanon Penal Code penalises with up to one year's imprisonment and a fine of up to 400,000 liras anyone who, by virtue of their position or profession, discloses or misuses a commercial secret without legitimate reason, if the act may cause harm.

Pursuant to Art. 36.2 of the Telecommunication Law, service providers are required to make their infrastructure facilities available to other providers upon request, in accordance with written agreements duly notified to the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA). Requests for shared use of infrastructure may not be refused except for valid and substantiated reasons, which must be provided in writing.

The Lebanese government retains several state-owned monopolies within the telecommunications sector. The state-owned enterprise Ogero owns and operates all fixed-line telecommunications services in Lebanon, while the two mobile and internet service providers, Touch and Alfa, are likewise under state ownership. In 2002, Lebanon enacted Law No. 431 to provide for the privatisation of the telecommunications sector; however, this legislation has yet to be implemented.

The telecom sector is fully owned by the Lebanese state, which holds full ownership of the fixed-line operator Ogero Telecom and the two mobile network operators, Alfa and Touch.

Art. 1 of the Law on Israel Boycott stipulates that any natural or legal person is prohibited from concluding, either directly or through an intermediary, an agreement with entities or individuals residing in Israel or acting for its benefit, where the subject matter of such agreement concerns commercial dealings, financial transactions, or any other form of transaction whatsoever. Under Art. 7.I.1.i of the Public Procurement Law, foreign bidders are required to submit a statement issued by the Ministry of Economy and Trade attesting to compliance with the provisions of the Law on Israel Boycott.

According to Art. 16 of the Public Procurement Law, bids offering goods or services of domestic origin may receive a preference margin of 10% over bids involving foreign goods or services.

Lebanon’s tendering processes are reportedly characterised by limited transparency, leading private companies to exercise caution when participating in public procurement. Evidence suggests that public institutions often circumvent regulations intended to guarantee full and open competition by dividing procurement requirements into smaller contracts that remain below agency procurement thresholds. Consequently, Lebanese government entities frequently resort to direct procurement procedures that follow inconsistent rules and often lack formal competitive bidding. While the Public Procurement Management Administration (PPMA) is generally regarded as transparent, risks of corruption persist within the tendering processes and among the ministries responsible for their implementation.

Lebanon is not a party to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). In fact, the country is not a member of the WTO.

Although an investment framework exists under Law No. 360 of 16 August 2001, complemented by Decrees No. 9311 and No. 9326 of 21 December 2002, it primarily serves to define the mandate of the Investment Development Authority of Lebanon (IDAL) and to provide incentives in priority sectors. It is reported that there are no foreign ownership restrictions in sectors relevant to digital trade. However, Law No. 1 of 1955 on the Israel Boycott prohibits foreign ownership in all sectors by Israeli citizens or companies.
According to Art. 1 of Law No. 1 of 1955, it is prohibited for any natural or legal person to enter into an agreement, either directly or through an intermediary, with entities or individuals residing in Israel, holding Israeli nationality, or acting on behalf of or for the benefit of Israel, when such agreements concern commercial transactions, financial operations, or any other dealings of any kind.