Armenia

Armenia has no domestic statute imposing AI-transparency or output-labelling duties, AI-risk obligations, training-data duties, prohibited-practices bans, governance duties, or sector-specific AI rules.

Its notable development is signing, alongside roughly a dozen other Council of Europe member and observer states, the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (CETS No. 225); the Council of Europe's own overview page lists Armenia among the treaty's signatories and lists only the European Union among the parties that have ratified it, so the Convention does not yet bind an app operating in Armenia.

On 6 January 2026 the Armenian Government approved a Doctrine of Economic and Institutional Transformation that names the development of artificial intelligence technologies as an economic priority and envisages a future national AI policy framework; this is a strategic policy document rather than binding legislation or regulation, and it creates no enforceable behavioural obligation for an AI system, so it is described here rather than recorded as an instrument.

The Law on State Support of the High-Technology Sector, Law No. HO-498-N (2024), is an industrial-policy payroll-tax incentive programme for the high-technology sector generally, researched under this jurisdiction's compute-topic document; it imposes no disclosure, transparency or accountability duty on an AI system and is not recorded here.

The Law on Protection of Personal Data's right concerning decisions made on the basis of processing (Art. 16) attaches to the processing of personal data rather than to an AI system as such, and is researched under this jurisdiction's privacy-topic document rather than here.

Armenia's Law on Protection of Personal Data, Law No. HO-49-N, in force since 1 July 2015, replaced a 2002-era law and is a Convention 108-family statute, not a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) transposition: it is markedly thinner than this batch's other jurisdictions on modern GDPR-specific features, most notably that no breach-notification duty appears anywhere in its 29 articles, confirmed by a full reading of the Act's security article (Art. 19) and a full article-by-article map rather than inferred from the Act's brevity.

Art. 13 gives biometric data a dedicated, if minimal, processing article requiring the data subject's consent except where a law-defined purpose can only be achieved through that processing, distinct from the general special-category rule at Art. 12; Art. 3(13)'s biometric-data definition is bare, with no processing-method or unique-identification qualifier and no named modality, so whether an identifier derived from a recording is included or excluded is not addressed by the statute's text.

Cross-border transfer (Art. 27) runs on an adequacy-list mechanism, consent, or the authorized body's written permission for a contract it has approved as providing adequate safeguards, a real and conditioned regime, more developed than the rest of the Act's brevity would predict.

Armenia ratified the Council of Europe's Convention 108+ modernizing protocol in 2022, one of the first roughly 16 states to do so, recorded here as context for the domestic statute rather than as a separate instrument. All quotations of Armenian-language text here are working translations, not an official or certified translation.

Armenia has no scraping-specific statute, so general law governs each dimension separately.

The current Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, Law No. HO-199-N (adopted 2021, in force since 1 July 2022), Chapter 38, criminalises penetrating a computer, computer system or computer network without permission under an authorisation test framed by law, contract or other legitimate basis (Art. 359), and separately criminalises intercepting or appropriating data not intended for general use without such permission, done for the purpose of using it or making it available to others (Art. 362).

Reading a public, unauthenticated page carries no obvious element of penetrating a protected system or appropriating data withheld from general use, so a plain reading of both articles leaves open-web crawling of a public page outside their reach, though no reported Armenian case has tested the point. The 2021 Code replaced a 2003-era Criminal Code whose Arts. 253 and 254 addressed similar conduct under different numbers; that earlier code is no longer in force.

No Armenian court has ruled on the enforceability of a browsewrap or clickwrap terms of service against a scraper, though Art. 359's authorisation test rests on law, contract, or other legitimate basis as three independent grounds for a right of access, a textual hook a scraper's breach of a website's terms could in principle engage even without technical circumvention; this reading is untested.

The Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Law No. AL-142 (2006, as amended), permits free use of a lawfully published work for quotation, criticism, research or informational purposes, including reproduction of newspaper and magazine extracts in the form of a press summary (Art. 22(2)(a)), but Armenia has not enacted a text-and-data-mining exception distinct from that general, attribution-conditioned, purpose-limited ground, a materially narrower basis for training a model on scraped text than a dedicated text and data mining (TDM) exception would provide.

The same Law confers a sui generis right on the maker of a database to prohibit extraction or re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part of a database's contents (Arts. 58-59), a genuine database right on the EU model, researched here as its own instrument.

Armenia's Law on Protection of Personal Data, Law No. HO-49-N (2015), researched as this jurisdiction's privacy-topic document, applies to personal data with only a narrow, subject's-own-act publicity ground (Art. 11) rather than a general carve-out for publicly accessible information, and conditions cross-border transfer on an adequacy list, consent, or the data protection authority's approval of a contract (Art. 27); scraping personal data from a public Armenian website therefore remains subject to that Act's lawful-basis and cross-border-transfer duties.

No Armenian statute or reported case establishes a scraping-specific unfair-competition, misappropriation or trespass doctrine, and none assigns legal weight to a robots.txt directive or imposes an AI-training-specific rule.

The Copyright Law's anti-circumvention provision (Art. 67) attaches copyright-infringement-level liability to circumventing a technological measure protecting copyrighted content, which could reach defeating a paywall or access control to scrape gated content, but no reported case applies it to scraping specifically. All quotations of Armenian-language text here are the researcher's own working translations, not an official or certified translation.

Armenia has no press-publisher neighbouring right and no mandatory platform-to-publisher bargaining code; the general copyright framework of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, Law No. AL-142 (2006, as amended), is the only law reaching an aggregator's reproduction of news content.

Its free-use provision permits, without the author's consent, quotation of a lawfully published extract for scientific, research, polemic, critical or informational purposes, including reproduction of newspaper and magazine extracts in the form of a press summary (Art. 22(2)(a)), and separately permits the press and broadcasters to reproduce lawfully published articles on current economic, political, social or religious issues unless the author has prohibited that use beforehand (Art. 22(2)(c)); both grounds require mention of the author's name and the work's origin and are conditioned on not prejudicing the author's normal exploitation of the work, with no reported Armenian decision applying either to a systematic news aggregator as opposed to an individual quoting a published work.

Article 55 gives a publisher an exclusive right over the typographical arrangement of its editions, that is, the printed layout, but this is not a neighbouring right over the substance of the reported content of the kind the European Union's Digital Single Market Directive Article 15 creates, so no press-publisher right of that kind exists here.

No statute or reported case addresses whether a hyperlink is itself a communication to the public, or whether framing or inline display changes the answer, and no hot-news or misappropriation doctrine distinct from ordinary copyright law was located. The Law predates the concept of a machine-readable text-and-data-mining reservation, so no opt-out mechanism of that kind exists.

All quotations of Armenian-language and English-translated text here are the researcher's own working translations except where quoted from the Intellectual Property Agency's own official English translation.