Globalaw Insights 

Every new and existing creation of personal data carries some risk of a possible data breach. Every organisation and data user must have clear policies and procedures for best practices in reporting data breaches and responding to data leakage incidents.

Different jurisdictions have their own criteria or laws governing how organisations should respond to data leak incidents. Most require data users to take all reasonable steps to protect personal data from unauthorized or accidental access, taking into consideration the type of data, potential harm from a breach, and measures to maintain the data's integrity for those who have access to it.

This article provides an overview of the criteria and laws applicable in Globalaw’s Asia Pacific region, including Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Hong Kong

Business operators in Hong Kong are encouraged to voluntarily report data breaches in accordance with the best practices published by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD).

Currently, there are no specific criminal penalties for data breaches, although civil liabilities may arise from breaches of contract, confidentiality, and negligence.

The newly enacted Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance, expecting to take effect on 1 January 2026, will require the operators of crucial infrastructures in Hong Kong in eight industries — energy, information technology, banking and financial services, air transportation, land transportation, maritime transport, healthcare services, and telecommunications and broadcasting services — to implement security plans and protocols, and report on security incidents. Failure to comply will result in fines ranging from HK$500,000 to HK$5 million.

India

India’s forthcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) requires data breaches to be reported promptly to both the Data Protection Board of India and the data principal. If data fiduciaries fail to provide such notice, they could face severe penalties of up to approximately USD 24 million.

Japan

In the event of serious data security breaches in Japan, business operators are required to notify both the Personal Information Protection Commission (JPIPC) and data subjects. The Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) imposes criminal penalties for various improper handling of personal data as well as failure to comply with the JPIPC rectification requests and orders.

South Korea

For any leak of sensitive personal data in South Korea, business operators must notify the Korean Personal Information Protection Commission and the affected data subjects within 72 hours of discovering the leak. Criminal penalties apply to intentional or severe negligence (such as illegal data sales or leaks), along with administrative fines, corrective orders, potential suspension of processing, and public disclosure.

Taiwan

In Taiwan, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) currently requires organisations to notify affected individuals of data breaches only after the relevant facts have been verified. Criminal penalties are imposed for intentional misconduct, with a tiered system of administrative fines for other violations. Notably, proposed amendments to the PDPA announced in March 2025 include increased reporting requirements, and business operators should closely monitor these upcoming changes.

--

This article is part of a series by our Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce members.

Globalaw’s APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce comprises 15 law firms in the Asia-Pacific region with specialized expertise in advising international companies on how to implement and manage a multijurisdictional data protection program. Taskforce member firms combine a strategic, business-minded approach with cross-border collaboration to help clients build and maintain sophisticated and resilient data practices, effectively mitigate and respond to incidents, and provide sophisticated representation to resolve disputes or regulatory investigations.

Explore the Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce brochure for more information and regional contacts.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information, including laws and statutes, cited are subject to change and is accurate as of 30 June 2025, but readers should verify such current status. We and our member firms shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the information contained in this article. Reliance on this content is at the reader’s own risk, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or acting upon this article. Always seek professional legal counsel to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

With the proliferation of data created each day across internet browsers, social media, digital transactions, streaming, logins, and other channels, many data subjects are uncertain about their data privacy rights: can they be forgotten?

While many countries in the Asia Pacific region follow jurisdictional directives that personal data shouldn’t be kept for longer than necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the data is used, there are some variations in how each jurisdiction handles the “right to be forgotten.” There are also precedent cases and judicial pronouncements that address the “right to erasure” of personal data.

This article provides an overview of the “right to be forgotten” in countries within Globalaw’s Asia Pacific region, including Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Hong Kong

Although there is no explicit “right to be forgotten” in Hong Kong, under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, data users must ensure personal data is retained only as long as necessary and generally must take reasonable steps to delete the personal data they hold when it is no longer needed, unless statutory exemptions apply.

India

There is no clear statutory provision; the Indian courts have recognized the “right to be forgotten” in some judicial pronouncements.

The Indian judiciary has also attempted to clarify the distinction between “right to be forgotten” and the “right to erasure” in its court decisions.

Further, the forthcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) will provide for a statutory “right to erasure” (unless the statutory restrictions apply).

Japan

While Japan does not have an explicit “right to be forgotten," the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) recognises the right of data subjects to correct, add, or delete their personal data when it is inaccurate.

South Korea

Data subjects in South Korea have the right to access, correct, delete, and suspend the processing of their data, as well as the right to withdraw their consent. Although there is no explicit “right to be forgotten,” it is increasingly recognised in practice as a separate right from the general deletion right.

In common practice, business operators in South Korea often establish a defined retention period and periodically re-request consent.

Taiwan

In Taiwan, although there is no explicit “right to be forgotten,” similar protections are provided under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) through various data subject rights, including rights to access, correct, delete data, and demand the cessation of data processing and use.

In practice, certain Taiwan courts have interpreted constitutional principles of informational self-determination and privacy to support this right, balancing individual rights against public interest when assessing removal requests, thus adapting to emerging digital privacy challenges.

--

This article is part of a series by our Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce members.

Globalaw’s APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce comprises 15 law firms in the Asia-Pacific region with specialized expertise in advising international companies on how to implement and manage a multijurisdictional data protection program.

Taskforce member firms combine a strategic, business-minded approach with cross-border collaboration to help clients build and maintain sophisticated and resilient data practices, effectively mitigate and respond to incidents, and provide sophisticated representation to resolve disputes or regulatory investigations.

Explore the Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce brochure for more information and regional contacts.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information, including laws and statutes, cited are subject to change and is accurate as of 30 June 2025, but readers should verify such current status. We and our member firms shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the information contained in this article. Reliance on this content is at the reader’s own risk, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or acting upon this article. Always seek professional legal counsel to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

While obtaining informed and voluntary consent from data subjects, organisations should clearly state the reasons for collecting the data, how it will be handled, and how it will be used.

Being transparent with subjects about data collection and use is especially important as data creation has proliferated across social media, streaming, digital transactions, smart devices, logins and other identifying information on search browsers, and the rise of AI and metadata in files.

In practice, the manner in which informed and voluntary data subject consent is conducted may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

This article explores guidelines and best practices for informing data subjects and obtaining voluntary consent in countries within Globalaw’s APAC region, including Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, where the governing body is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD), a data user must expressly inform the data subject of the purpose for which the data is to be used on or before collection of the data.

Provision of personal data pursuant to such information by the data subject shall be deemed sufficient consent, which is implied.

However, new consent from the data subject is required if such personal data shall be used for a new purpose. For example, changing policies to begin sharing data with a third-party partner for direct marketing.

For cross-border transfers, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance stipulates, among other requirements, that the data subject must also provide written consent specifically; however, this requirement has not yet come into effect.

India

In India, where the governing body is the country’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), principal data subject consent should be free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous.

Also, while seeking consent from data principals, a notice must be displayed informing them about: (i) the personal data and the purpose for which the same has been processed; (ii) the manner in which they may exercise their rights; and (iii) the manner in which the data principal may make a complaint to the board. These basic requirements also apply to consent for cross-border transfer of personal information.

Japan

In Japan, where the governing body is the country’s Personal Information Protection Commission, business operators must clearly outline the purpose of data collection and obtain specific consent for the cross-border transfer of personal information, with certain exceptions.

South Korea

In South Korea, where the governing body is the country’s Personal Information Protection Commission, informed and voluntary consent is essential for collecting and using personal data, unless a legal exception applies.

Additionally, consent for collection, third-party provision, and cross-border transfers must be obtained separately and clearly distinguished.

Since March 2023, amendments have expanded the grounds for data collection to include cases necessary for fulfilling contracts or implementing measures requested by data subjects during the contract formation process. The practical application of these changes continues to develop and adapt.

Taiwan

In Taiwan, where the Taiwanese government is in the process of forming the Personal Data Protection Commission, organisations must expressly inform data subjects when collecting personal data.

Organisations must detail the purposes of collection, types of data, usage scope (including duration, geography, territory, and methods), data subject rights, and consequences of non-disclosure, unless exempt by law. When collection involves planning for cross-border transfers, intended overseas jurisdictions should also be specified.

--

This article is part of a series by our Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce members.

Globalaw’s APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce comprises 15 law firms in the Asia-Pacific region with specialized expertise in advising international companies on how to implement and manage a multijurisdictional data protection program.

Taskforce member firms combine a strategic, business-minded approach with cross-border collaboration to help clients build and maintain sophisticated and resilient data practices, effectively mitigate and respond to incidents, and provide sophisticated representation to resolve disputes or regulatory investigations.

Explore the Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce brochure for more information and regional contacts.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information, including laws and statutes, cited are subject to change and is accurate as of 30 June 2025, but readers should verify such current status. We and our member firms shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the information contained in this article. Reliance on this content is at the reader’s own risk, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or acting upon this article. Always seek professional legal counsel to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

A Data Protection Officer (DPO) ensures that an organisation’s data collection, processing and use complies with applicable data protection rules and regulations. DPOs are generally data protection experts with specialized knowledge and experience. They provide advice and guidance on best practices, compliance, policies and procedures, education and training, risk management and data breach response protocols.

The rapid pace of data creation, accelerated by content generated by AI, social media, streaming, digital transactions and smart technology, has increased government intervention in data governance and protection.

As such, certain jurisdictions require that companies appoint a DPO, while others strongly recommend it. This article explores the DPO requirements, qualifications and responsibilities in countries within Globalaw’s Asia Pacific region, including Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

DPO Requirements by Jurisdiction

Appointing a DPO is a recommended practice rather than a requirement in both Hong Kong and Japan. By contrast, South Korea requires most companies to appoint a DPO, except those with fewer than 10 permanent employees.

In India, DPOs are required for significant data fiduciaries. While Taiwan does not require DPOs, certain industries mandate the designation of data protection personnel.

• Hong Kong: Recommended
• India: Required for significant data fiduciaries (to be notified by the government)
• Japan: Recommended
• South Korea: Required for companies with more than 0 permanent employees
• Taiwan: Required by certain industries to designate responsible personnel

Qualifications of a DPO

For Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, there are no mandatory certifications, licenses, or qualifications required before someone can be appointed as a company’s DPO.

While there are also no legal or technical qualification mandates for India, a DPO shall be (a) based in India, and (b) be an individual responsible to the Board of Directors or similar governing body of the significant data fiduciary.

Responsibilities of a DPO

The responsibilities of a DPO vary by jurisdiction and, in some cases, by industry and are authorized by the governing authority of that jurisdiction.

Hong Kong

Governing Body: The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD).

The PCPD provides the following recommendations:

• Establish and implement the Privacy Management Programme (PMP), such as maintaining a record of the organisation's data inventory, conducting periodic risk assessments, and providing training and education.
• Review the effectiveness of the PMP, including preparing an oversight and review plan.
• Report regularly to top management on the organization's compliance issues, problems encountered, and complaints received related to personnel.

India

Governing Body: Government of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)

Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), the DPO shall represent the significant data fiduciary under the provisions of the legislation and be the point of contact for the grievance redressal mechanism.

Japan

Governing Body: Personal Information Protection Commission

A DPO is not subject to any legally mandated responsibilities.

South Korea

Governing Body: The Personal Information Protection Commission

Under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), the DPO handles personal information for business purposes to comply with the regulations. These responsibilities include:

• Overseeing the handling and protection of personal data,
• Establishing internal policies and safeguards,
• Responding to data subject requests (e.g., correction, deletion),
• Managing incident response for data breaches,
• Serving as the liaison with the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC),
• Conducting regular audits and training

Taiwan

Governing Body: The Taiwanese government is in the process of forming the Personal Data Protection Commission.

Only specific industries are required to designate responsible personnel, and sector-specific regulations govern their responsibilities.

--

This article is part of a series by our Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce members.

Globalaw’s APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce comprises 15 law firms in the Asia-Pacific region with specialized expertise in advising international companies on how to implement and manage a multijurisdictional data protection program.

Taskforce member firms combine a strategic, business-minded approach with cross-border collaboration to help clients build and maintain sophisticated and resilient data practices, effectively mitigate and respond to incidents, and provide sophisticated representation to resolve disputes or regulatory investigations.

Explore the Globalaw APAC Data Privacy & Protection Taskforce brochure for more information and regional contacts.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information, including laws and statutes, cited are subject to change and is accurate as of 30 June 2025, but readers should verify such current status. We and our member firms shall not be held liable for any loss and/or damage incurred by any person acting as a result of the information contained in this article. Reliance on this content is at the reader’s own risk, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or acting upon this article. Always seek professional legal counsel to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Sports Foundation (ASF) have partnered together to launch the Aspiring Australian Olympic Funding initiative. This new initiative is a strategic fundraising platform designed to provide financial support to emerging Summer and Winter Olympians whilst enabling individuals and entities to make fully tax-deductible donations through the ASF, a registered Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) under Australian tax law.

Under this initiative, all donations of $2 or more made through the Australian Sports Foundation are tax-deductible, providing an incentive for philanthropic giving. Depending on the donor’s marginal tax rate, the effective cost of a donation may be reduced by 32% to 45%, making it a cost-efficient way to support underfunded Olympic sports. For instance, a $1,000 donation could yield a tax refund of up to $450, bringing the net cost down to just $550.

Many of Australia’s Olympic athletes often earn below the national average and personally cover the costs of training, travel, and competition. By using the Australian Sports Foundation’s tax-deductible giving structure, this initiative opens the door for both corporate sponsors and individual donors to make a difference. Contributions not only help ease the financial burden on athletes but also directly support their preparation and performance.

How McInnes Wilson can help?

We provide comprehensive sports law services, supporting athletes, sporting organisations and businesses in contract negotiations, governance, intellectual property, sponsorship agreements and dispute resolution. Our team understands the unique challenges of the sports industry and offers strategic legal solutions to protect rights, manage risks, and ensure compliance with industry regulations.

You can find more information about McInnes Wilson Sports Law and transactional, advisory and tax experience here. Or contact our team:

Michael Fredericks

mfredericks@mcw.com.au

+61 7 3231 0420

Morgan Gallagher

mgallagher@mcw.com.au

+61 7 3231 0684

The Asia Pacific region has experienced a noticeable increase in commercial sports teams recruiting athletes from outside their home countries. For instance, basketball, volleyball and football players in the Philippines are increasingly sought after by Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan clubs. Similarly, the recruitment of foreign student-athletes, primarily in basketball, volleyball, and football, is rising at the country’s universities and colleges. 

Yet, sports law remains largely unregulated in the Philippines and many other jurisdictions. The absence of clear legal frameworks often creates ambiguity regarding an athlete’s rights and obligations, and many are unaware of their legal protections and responsibilities.

This article explores the key issues and considerations affecting sports law in the Asia-Pacific region.

Contractual Protection

Too often, athletes sign contracts without fully understanding the long-term implications, leading to disputes over payments, sponsorship obligations, image rights, or contract termination terms.

Furthermore, the internationalization of sports has significantly impacted contractual agreements. Contracts involving foreign athletes often raise complex legal issues, such as jurisdictional considerations, applicable law, and cross-border enforcement.

Additional complications arise with young athletes, requiring parental involvement or representation, and raising concerns about consent, capacity, and enforceability.

As a result, athletes and stakeholders, including sports clubs and organizations, national bodies, sponsors, broadcasters, agents, and data providers, are increasingly engaging legal counsel and representation for contract negotiation, regulatory compliance, dispute resolution, and sponsorship agreements.

Athlete & Sponsorship Agreements

Athlete and sponsor agreements and media rights are essential elements of the commercial framework surrounding modern sports. Today’s athletes increasingly act as social media influencers, endorsing consumer products like cosmetics, food, and apparel. 

Athlete agreements typically include compensation, performance KPIs, image rights, media obligations, off-field conduct, injuries, and digital presence. Resembling talent agreements commonly found in entertainment, they tend to be heavily one-sided and complex, particularly when young or inexperienced athletes are involved, placing disproportionate control in the hands of sponsors, teams, or agents.

Sponsorship agreements usually include exclusivity clauses, activation rights, morality clauses triggered by athlete misconduct or reputational risks, and distinctions between team and personal sponsors.

In the Philippines, such arrangements remain primarily informal and are often carried out without written contracts. This lack of formal documentation exposes athletes to considerable legal and financial risks, including potential exploitation, misappropriation of likeness, and non-payment of sponsorship fees.

Media & IP Rights

As athletes continue to commercialize their personal brands, particularly through digital platforms, questions regarding the ownership and control of their name, image, likeness, and other Intellectual Property (IP) assets will necessitate careful legal consideration and clear contractual terms.

Events and competitions are increasingly monetizing sports data, highlights, and digital content, calling for sharper legal focus on trademark registration, licensing, and enforcement, especially regarding digital piracy, counterfeit merchandise, and unauthorized use of content online. 

Media rights involve various legal considerations, including territorial and platform exclusivity, live and non-live content rights, digital distribution protocols, and revenue-sharing arrangements between leagues and athletes. Key concerns include

• Who owns athlete-generated content on social media?
• How is it monetized?
• What happens when it’s shared or sponsored independently of the league or club?

Dispute Resolution

Dispute resolution in sports is increasingly managed through arbitration and mediation. Institutions like the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are highly effective in preserving the integrity of sports by confidentially and efficiently resolving cross-border disputes and maintaining procedural fairness across jurisdictions.

Notable examples include doping appeals, disputes over athlete eligibility in international tournaments, and conflicts arising from broadcasting and sponsorship agreements.

Given the industry’s accelerating commercialization and globalization, regulatory bodies and legal counsel must stay vigilant in enforcing anti-corruption standards. This includes implementing whistleblower mechanisms, investigating match-fixing allegations, and adhering to codes of conduct set forth by international federations and national governing bodies.

Anti-Doping Laws

The global framework for anti-doping laws and compliance is primarily governed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which outlines the World Anti-Doping Code, a unified set of standards designed to promote fairness, integrity, and health in sports. Member countries and sporting bodies are required to implement these standards through domestic legislation and regulatory policies.

The Indonesia Anti-Doping Organization (IADO) rebranded in 2022 to function as a professional and independent body, crucial in lifting WADA’s previous non-compliance sanctions on the country. The National Sports Committee of Indonesia (KONI) has partnered with IADO to promote anti-doping education and campaigns at all sports levels, from national to local. 

Understanding IADO’s regulations and WADA’s standards is essential for ensuring athletes and support personnel are educated about anti-doping rules and compliant with testing procedures. Compliance also helps uphold integrity in sports.

A Specialized Law Partner You Can Trust

As the sports industry expands and professionalizes globally, the need for robust, adaptable, and forward-looking strategies becomes even more urgent. Whether addressing governance, commercial rights, athlete protection, or emerging digital challenges, experienced legal professionals are critical for shaping a transparent, fair, and sustainable sporting environment.

Globalaw’s Sports Law Taskforce is a dedicated advisory group of 22 member firms and over 30 attorneys in jurisdictions around the world. Through specialized legal counsel and representation that addresses multifaceted issues and cross-border needs, we help our clients develop and implement a legal framework that protects and empowers their interests for today and tomorrow.

Download the Globalaw Sports Law Taskforce brochure or contact me for more information about our capabilities.

An increasingly complex landscape for international trade is presenting new challenges for cross-border business. Geopolitical tensions, fluctuating tariffs, and diverging trade policies have introduced significant uncertainty for buyers and sellers internationally. The prospect of increased tariffs disrupts pricing expectations and predictability around international commercial arrangements. In this environment, the mitigation and management of potential tariff risks are paramount for cross-border businesses.

To this end, Incoterms (International Commercial Terms) are important tools to help mitigate risks associated with increased costs caused by tariffs. Incoterms are a set of globally standardized contractual terms used for risk and responsibility management between international commercial entities.

While Incoterms do not directly address tariffs themselves, they can be used to allocate cost and payment obligations to minimize trade disruptions caused by tariffs.

BACKGROUND

Originally developed by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in 1936, Incoterms have evolved over time to address the changing demands of global trade. There are currently a set of eleven (11) internationally recognized Incoterms that are used to provide clarity and consistency in international trade contracts.

The latest iteration, Incoterms 2020, has been updated to reflect modern trade realities.

COMMON INCOTERMS AND TARIFF MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Some of the most common Incoterms used in commercial contracts for tariff mitigation strategies include:

1. Delivered Duty Paid (DDP)

In an unpredictable tariff environment, Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) is an ideal Incoterm for use by buyers seeking price certainty and risk protection from fluctuating tariffs.

Under DDP, the seller delivers goods cleared for import and ready for unloading at a named location. The seller is responsible for the costs and risks associated with final delivery, including the payment of tariffs.

DDP can assist buyers in uncertain tariff situations in multiple ways. Firstly, DDP provides price stabilization for the delivered goods by ensuring that the seller covers any import tariffs. This mitigates against price increases necessitated by changes in tariffs in the destination country. DDP also provides predictable costs by allowing the buyer to know the total landed cost before delivery. Finally, DDP can help to shield the buyer from uncertainty around the risk of increased tariffs during the transportation process. These factors make the use of DDP in commercial contracts particularly helpful for buyers by providing predictability around prices and costs.

2. Ex Works (EXW)

Ex Works (EXW) is an Incoterm that can be used by sellers who want to limit their tariff exposure. EXW is also helpful to buyers interested in managing tariff risks by taking advantage of potentially favorable tariff rates, depending on their location.

Under EXW, the seller ensures that goods are available for shipment at their premises, or another agreed-upon location. The buyer then assumes full responsibility for arranging shipment, transport and meeting customs regulations, including paying applicable tariffs in the importing country.

Under EXW, the seller’s responsibilities end once the goods are made available for transport, thereby limiting their tariff exposure. EXW also gives the buyer control to manage tariff risks based on their location. For example, if the buyer is located in a region with favorable tariff rates or subject to a free trade agreement, the buyer can import the goods at a lower tariff rate than may exist in other regions. EXW also presents opportunities for the buyer to arrange shipping routes with advantageous tariff rates.

3. Free on Board (FOB)

Free on Board (FOB) is technically an Incoterm applicable only to inland waterway transport but used commercially for other modes. FOB is particularly beneficial to sellers looking to minimize their tariff exposure throughout the shipping process.

Under FOB, the seller is only responsible for the costs of clearing goods for export and for their delivery onto a vessel for transport at a named port of departure. As soon as the goods are over the ship’s rail when loaded on to the transport vessel, the buyer becomes liable for risks and costs, including import clearance and tariff payment in the destination country.

Using FOB in commercial contracts minimizes the seller’s tariff risk. It also allows the buyer flexibility to take advantage of shipping destinations that may benefit from lower tariff rates and free trade agreements.

4. Free Carrier (FCA)

Free Carrier (FCA) is an Incoterm that provides flexibility to both the buyer and seller to collaborate on tariff mitigation strategies around advantageous delivery points that may benefit from lower tariff regions or trade agreements.

FCA allows the seller to deliver goods to a carrier at an agreed location, that can be chosen strategically to minimize tariffs for the buyer. Once transferred at the delivery point, the buyer assumes responsibility for import tariffs and customs clearance. FCA allows the buyer more control over customs procedures and can facilitate the use of shipping routes that minimize tariff exposure, depending on the agreed delivery point. Under FCA, both the seller and buyer can benefit from tariff risk minimization.

The use of Incoterms provides businesses with the opportunity to be proactive in managing commercial activities in the face of increasing tariff threats. Counsel can assist in identifying and implementing appropriate Incoterms to address specific considerations around optimizing supply chains, leveraging trade agreements and other risk allocation strategies to ensure smooth international transactions in the current global trade environment.

After seven years of processing, last August 26, the Congress approved the bill that regulates the protection and processing of Personal Data, creating the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data, corresponding to bulletins No. 11,092-07 and 11,144-07 (hereinafter, the“Bill”). This initiative implies a profound reform of Law No. 19,628, previously known as the “Law on the Protection of Private Life”. Therefore, preventive constitutional review by the Constitutional Court is still pending, as well as its subsequent promulgation and publication for it to enter into force.

Read more here.

The Philippines has long been considered the sick man of Asia. With repeated moves to open up its economy and liberalize industries in the name of development and foreign investments, the Public Service Act has finally been amended. This is the breakthrough that supposedly a lot of industries have been waiting for, the shipping industry included. This article aims to give a glimpse into what may lie ahead for shipping and its related businesses.

Read more

Florida’s new law, the Conveyances to Foreign Entities Act (the "Act"), Sections 692.201 – 205, Florida Statutes, went into effect on July 1, 2023, and redefined the Florida real estate market for foreign purchasers from seven “countries of concern.” The Act requires those foreign purchasers to determine whether they are Foreign Principals prohibited from acquiring or owning real property in Florida, whether they are subject to registration requirements, or whether they are required to dispose of such real estate. Non-compliance renders the real property subject to forfeiture and sale of such real property (subject only to the rights and interests of bona fide lienholders) and risks daily fines of $1,000 and criminal penalties.

Read More