Fiji

Fiji has no scraping-specific statute, so the position rests on general law.

The Copyright Act 1999 protects an original literary work, defined to include a table or compilation, and permits fair dealing with a work for criticism, review, and news reporting or for research or private study, but its permitted-acts provisions carry no exception for text and data mining, so training a model on scraped copyrighted text has to fit one of those narrow purposes or infringe; the Act binds the State as well as private parties.

The Cybercrime Act 2021 replaced the Crimes Act 2009's computer-offence provisions and, per its arrangement of sections, includes an offence of unauthorised access to computer systems among others reaching unauthorised interception of and unauthorised acts on computer data, but the operative definition of authorisation and the penalty for each offence are not reproduced in the available copies of the Act.

No comprehensive personal-data statute reaches scraped personal information; the 2013 Constitution's section 24 right to personal privacy is the only general safeguard, and it binds a natural or legal person as well as the State. No sui generis database right, terms-of-service enforceability decision, unfair-competition doctrine, or robots.txt ruling for this jurisdiction has been located.

Fiji's Cybercrime Act 2021 (Act No. 3 of 2021, assented 12 February 2021) is a computer-misuse statute, not a security-posture instrument.

Part 2 criminalises unauthorised access to, unauthorised interception of, and unauthorised acts in relation to a computer system, together with unlawful supply or possession of a device, program, or data for committing those offences; Part 3 adds computer-related forgery and computer-related extortion and fraud; and Part 4 adds identity theft, theft of telecommunication services, disclosure during an investigation, and a duty on a person other than a suspect to assist a person executing an order under the Act.

Every one of these provisions binds the person who attacks, defrauds, or withholds assistance from an investigation into a computer system, not the operator or manufacturer of that system, so the Act sets no product-security requirement, no vulnerability-handling duty, and no duty to report an incident to an authority or to users; it belongs to the scraping topic rather than here.

The Online Safety Act 2018 (Act No. 8 of 2018) is out of scope on the opposite ground: it establishes the Online Safety Commission and a complaint, mediation, and court-order regime addressed to an electronic communication that causes harm, including the posting of an intimate visual recording, regulating the content a person posts rather than the security of any system, so it creates no product-security, vulnerability-handling, incident-reporting, or baseline-security duty either.

The Telecommunications Promulgation 2008 (Promulgation No. 1 of 2008) is the nearest sectoral hook and still falls short of an instrument: section 55 gives the Telecommunications Authority of Fiji a discretionary power to make technical rules and standards for the import, use, supply, installation, or maintenance of telecommunications equipment where necessary to prevent damage to a telecommunications network or service or to public health, safety, or the environment, and section 79(1)(d) lets the Authority issue a desist order against a licensee whose operation of a facility or provision of a service compromises network security or integrity.

Both are an equipment type-approval power and an enforcement trigger rather than a stated duty: no technical rule or standard made under section 55 is described in the Promulgation's own text, and neither provision sets a clock, a content, or a recipient for a security report the way a reporting duty would.

Fiji has no jurisdiction-wide data-protection or privacy statute; the privacy topic already records that the 2013 Constitution's section 24 personal-privacy right is the only general safeguard and that a National Digital Strategy and a Cabinet-endorsed policy commit to future data-protection legislation that the privacy topic records as proposed, not enacted, so there is no security-of-processing article or breach-notification duty on either side of that seam to name here.

The Reserve Bank of Fiji's Prudential Supervision Policy Statement No. 2 sets cybersecurity duties and a 24-hour incident notice for the financial institutions it supervises, filed as rows of its own. The Copyright Act 1999 carries no security-relevant provision and is already researched under this jurisdiction's other topic rows.

The Reserve Bank of Fiji's Prudential Supervision Policy Statement on cybersecurity risk, PSPS 2, requires a supervised entity to have a documented cybersecurity risk management framework that is part of its enterprise risk management framework and is regularly reviewed.

PSPS 2 also requires a supervised entity to notify the Reserve Bank of Fiji within 24 hours after becoming aware of a cybersecurity incident that materially affects or has the potential to materially affect the institution or the interests of those who use its services.

Fiji has no press-publisher neighbouring right, no compelled platform-to-publisher bargaining code, no codified hot-news or misappropriation doctrine, and no statute or reported decision addressing whether linking to or framing a news article is a communication to the public.

Reproducing a headline or extract of a news article falls to the Copyright Act 1999's fair dealing exception for reporting current events (s. 41), which excuses fair dealing with a work for that purpose, accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement where the reporting is not by sound recording, audio visual work, broadcast, or cable programme; the exception turns on the fairness of the specific dealing rather than a blanket allowance for aggregation.

The Act carries no text-and-data-mining exception, so an aggregator's automated indexing or AI training on news content must fit within the criticism, review, research, or news-reporting fair-dealing purposes or infringe.