Law / Marshall Islands

Marshall Islands

5 of 7 named instruments researched to a stage, across two of the ten areas of law we track: 5 in force. As of .

  1. AI law
  2. Privacy law 3
  3. Scraping law
  4. Cybersecurity law 2
  5. Communications law not researched
  6. Content moderation law not researched
  7. Product and AI liability law not researched
  8. Digital accessibility law not researched
  9. Age gating law
  10. Reuse law

in forcenot yet in forceblocked by a courtproposedno longer in force

Privacy law3 instruments, 3 in force

Research summary (323 words)

The Marshall Islands enacted its first personal-data statute, the Personal Data Protection Act 2025 (6 MIRC Ch. 4), which commenced on and applies to core Government ministries and agencies that collect, use, store, process, disclose, or transfer the personal data of natural persons, including a third party acting as a data controller or data processor on such a ministry's or agency's behalf.

Its principles engage the comprehensive-regime family (purpose limitation, minimization, accuracy, retention, security, and accountability), and its administration, remedies, reporting, and complaints provisions separately engage the enforcement-and-supervision family: the Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Office is the competent authority, a person residing in the Republic may sue a ministry or agency for improper administration though not for compensatory damages against the ministry or agency itself, and may separately sue an offending employee personally for compensatory damages.

The Act states no consent requirement, no heightened rule for sensitive or biometric data beyond naming them in a definition, no data-subject access, correction, deletion, or portability right, no cross-border transfer restriction, and no breach-notification duty, and it excludes law-enforcement and national-security processing, non-personal data, and publicly available information.

No statute extends a comparable duty to a private-sector controller or processor acting outside a government engagement.

Section 250.12 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of the Marshall Islands 2011 (31 MIRC Ch. 1) separately makes it a misdemeanor for any person to trespass with intent to eavesdrop or surveil, to install a device to observe or record in a private place without consent, to intercept a private telephone, facsimile, electronic-mail, or letter communication without the sender's or receiver's consent, or to divulge such a message knowing it was illegally intercepted; an enforcement-and-supervision offence that is the Republic's closest general privacy protection reaching private parties.

Article II of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands protects personal autonomy and privacy against government intrusion but states no operative duty of its own.

Comprehensive regime

Personal Data Protection Act 2025, government personal-data protection principles

Personal Data Protection Act 2025, 6 MIRC Ch. 4 (P.L. 2025-43), ss. 401-405, 409, 415, 418Marshall Islands Revised Code, 6 MIRC Ch. 4 (Personal Data Protection Act 2025), archived capture of the certified text

archived copyRead from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived 2026. Publisher's page: https://www.rmiparliament.org/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2025/2025-0043/2025-0043_1.pdf

In force since . Binds government bodies.

What this law does

Sections 401 to 405 apply this Chapter to core Government ministries and agencies of the Republic that collect, use, store, process, disclose, or transfer personal data of natural persons, and their definitions of data controller and data processor extend to a third party acting on behalf of such a ministry or agency; the Chapter excludes processing for law enforcement or national intelligence and national security purposes, non-personal data, and publicly available information lawfully obtained from government records, voluntarily made available by the data subject without audience restriction, or otherwise lawfully obtained, truthful, and a matter of public concern.

Section 409 sets six personal data protection principles binding core Government ministries and agencies: a legitimate-purpose principle requiring lawful, fair, transparent processing for specified purposes; a data-minimization principle limiting collection to what the purpose requires; an accuracy principle requiring inaccurate personal data to be corrected or deleted without delay; a retention principle limiting storage to what the purpose requires; an integrity and security principle requiring technical and organizational protection against unauthorized or unlawful processing and unintentional loss, destruction, or damage, and limiting staff access to what their duties need; and an accountability principle making the data controller responsible for demonstrating compliance.

Section 415 lets core Government ministries and agencies voluntarily share personal data with each other under a safe harbor, provided the sharing serves a legitimate function of each ministry or agency and complies with the section 409 principles, and lets the competent authority set standards for such sharing agreements.

Section 418 states the Chapter takes effect twelve months after the date of its certification under Article IV, section 21 of the Constitution, which the Act's own commencement note records as . The Act states no consent requirement, no data-subject access, correction, deletion, or portability right, no heightened rule for sensitive or biometric data beyond the definition, and no cross-border transfer restriction.

What it requires

Enforcement supervision

Criminal Code 2011, Violation of Privacy (unlawful eavesdropping, surveillance, and breach of privacy of messages)

Criminal Code 2011, 31 MIRC Ch. 1, sec. 250.12Marshall Islands Revised Code, 31 MIRC Ch. 1 (Criminal Code of the Republic of the Marshall Islands 2011), archived consolidated text

archived copyRead from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived 2020. Publisher's page: https://www.paclii.org/mh/legis/consol_act/cc201194/

In force since . Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

Section 250.12(1) makes it a misdemeanor, except as authorized by law, to trespass on property with intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place, to install in a private place, without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there, a device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events, or to install or use outside a private place a device for hearing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside, again without that person's consent; a private place is one a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but does not include a place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access.

Section 250.12(2)(a) separately makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly intercept, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, facsimile, electronic mail, letter, or other means of communicating privately, an offence that does not extend to overhearing a message through a regularly installed telephone party line or extension, or to an interception by the telephone company or a subscriber incident to enforcing regulations that limit use of the facilities.

Section 250.12(2)(b) makes it a misdemeanor to divulge the existence or contents of such a message without the consent of the sender or receiver, where the person divulging it knows the message was illegally intercepted, or learned of it in the course of employment with an agency engaged in transmitting it.

The section states no penalty of its own; a misdemeanor under the Code's general sentencing provisions carries a fine of up to $1,000 and a definite term of imprisonment, fixed by the court, of up to one year.

What it requires

Personal Data Protection Act 2025, competent authority, remedies, and complaints

Personal Data Protection Act 2025, ss. 406-408, 410-414, 416-417 (6 MIRC Ch. 4, P.L. 2025-43)Marshall Islands Revised Code, 6 MIRC Ch. 4 (Personal Data Protection Act 2025), archived capture of the certified text

archived copyRead from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived 2026. Publisher's page: https://www.rmiparliament.org/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2025/2025-0043/2025-0043_1.pdf

In force since . Binds government bodies.

What this law does

Section 406 designates the Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Office (EPSSO) as the competent authority responsible for administering this Chapter, and section 407 gives it power to develop guidance and capacity-building initiatives, coordinate data sharing among ministries and agencies, require information from them as needed to comply with this Chapter, and make rules or regulations for its implementation.

Section 408 requires any director, employee, consultant, or other person engaged by the competent authority under this Chapter to maintain confidentiality of personal data obtained in the performance of their duties.

Section 410 lets a natural person residing in the Republic who suffers an injury from a core Government ministry's or agency's alleged improper administration of the Chapter bring suit against that ministry or agency, and separately lets that person sue an employee of the public service personally, in the employee's own capacity, for willful or grossly negligent conduct causing the injury, including for compensatory damages against the employee.

Section 411 lists the remedies a court may impose on the ministry or agency itself, an injunction, mandamus, a corrective order, or a public statement of remedy, but bars a court from awarding compensatory relief against the ministry or agency itself. Section 412 requires the competent authority to report yearly to the Minister for presentation to the Nitijela on this Chapter's implementation.

Section 413 requires core Government ministries and agencies to compile and record each calendar year the policies and actions taken to implement the Chapter and the complaints received, and to report that information to the competent authority by July 1 of each year in anonymized form.

Section 414 requires each ministry and agency to establish a process for a natural person residing in the Republic to submit a complaint about an alleged violation, consistent with the competent authority's guidance. Section 417 lets the competent authority, with Cabinet approval, make regulations for the Chapter's effective performance. The Chapter states no penalty or offence provision of its own.

What it requires

Cybersecurity law2 instruments, 2 in force

Research summary (683 words)

The Marshall Islands enacted the Cybersecurity Act 2025 (40 MIRC Ch. 4, P.L. 2025-0027) the same day as its Telecommunications (Reform) Act 2025 (40 MIRC Ch. 5, P.L. 2025-28) and roughly six months before its Personal Data Protection Act 2025 (6 MIRC Ch. 4, commenced ), a package resembling the Cybersecurity Act, Computer Crimes Act, and Personal Data Protection Act Tonga enacted the same year, and the Republic's counterpart to that criminal-law piece is its Cybercrimes Act 2025, which commenced .

That Cybercrimes Act makes access to, or interference with, critical information infrastructure a first-degree felony, but it is an intruder-facing criminal statute rather than a duty on an operator, so it is not filed here.

The Cybersecurity Act creates a Chief Information Security Officer within the Office of National Security, empowers the Director of National Security to designate a computer or computer system as critical information infrastructure supporting an essential service (a service the Director determines is essential to national security, the economy, public health, public safety, public order, or the continuous provision of basic public services), and, once a system is designated, binds its owner, a term the Act defines broadly enough to reach a natural person, a public body, or a commercial or non-commercial organization, to implement cybersecurity risk-management measures (section 406) and to report a significant cybersecurity incident on a fixed 24-hour, 72-hour, and 30-day clock (section 407).

Both duties are filed as instruments for an operator of an essential service.

The Act separately requires a person providing an accreditable cybersecurity service, chiefly penetration testing or Security Operations Center monitoring under section 414, to hold a Director-issued accreditation; that is a professional-services licensing duty with no bound-party class this corpus's activity vocabulary can express, so it is named here rather than raised against a declared activity, the same treatment this profile gives DORA's financial entities and Singapore's licensable-cybersecurity-service providers.

Part V, which carries that accreditation duty, does not take effect until the Director promulgates its implementing regulations, and no source located during this research confirms that has happened; nor does any source located confirm whether the Director has yet issued the initial critical-information-infrastructure designation order section 419 required within twelve months of the Act's effective date, so which systems are actually bound today is an open question rather than a settled one.

The Personal Data Protection Act 2025 is privacy-shaped rather than security-shaped: it binds only core Government ministries and agencies, not a private-sector controller, and its integrity-and-security principle is one clause of a comprehensive consent-and-processing regime already researched under this jurisdiction's privacy topic, so it is not repeated here.

The Criminal Code 2011's Violation of Privacy offense (unauthorized eavesdropping, surveillance, and interception of a private communication) is an intruder-facing offense rather than an operator-facing duty and is already researched under this jurisdiction's scraping topic.

The Telecommunications (Reform) Act 2025, enacted the same day as the Cybersecurity Act, establishes the sector's licensing and open-market framework and requires an authorized telecommunications provider to maintain lawful-interception capability for national-security and law-enforcement purposes, but no cybersecurity risk-management or incident-reporting duty was found in its text; that ground is instead covered by the standalone Cybersecurity Act.

No source reachable this session establishes whether the National Telecommunications Authority the Reform Act creates has issued its own network-security regulation beyond the Cybersecurity Act, whether a domestic bank operates under a Banking Commission cybersecurity or IT-risk directive, or whether the Foreign Investment Business License Act 1990 conditions a business license on a security-of-systems criterion; PacLII's consolidated Marshall Islands legislation library returned a CAPTCHA challenge on every attempt this session, and this session's web-search tool was unavailable throughout, so each of these is recorded as an open research gap rather than a confirmed absence.

No enacted Marshall Islands statute located this session sets a security requirement a software product or connected device must meet before or after being placed on the market; the Cybersecurity Act's duties attach to the operator of a designated system, not to a manufacturer. Nothing located ties a cybersecurity duty to the Marshall Islands' offshore corporate-registry or vessel-registry business.

Sector security regimes

Cybersecurity Act 2025, Cybersecurity of Critical Information Infrastructure

Cybersecurity Act 2025, 40 MIRC Ch. 4 §§ 405-406 (P.L. 2025-0027)Republic of the Marshall Islands Nitijela legislation portal (rmiparliament.org)

archived copyRead from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived 2026. Publisher's page: https://www.rmiparliament.org/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2025/2025-0027/2025-0027_1.pdf

In force since . Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

Section 406 requires the owner of a computer or computer system the Director of the Office of National Security has designated critical information infrastructure under section 405 to implement technical, operational, and organizational measures to manage the cybersecurity risks that may affect it, and measures to prevent and mitigate the impact of a cybersecurity incident or threat.

At minimum the owner must conduct rolling cybersecurity risk assessments at a frequency the Chief Information Security Officer prescribes and develop internal cybersecurity policies and procedures, an internal incident-reporting policy, and an internal cybersecurity awareness program. No later than thirty days after completing that risk assessment, the owner must transmit a copy of the resulting cybersecurity mitigation actions to the Director.

The Director may also order, at the owner's own cost and no more than once every two years, an audit of the critical information infrastructure where the Director has reason to believe the owner has not complied with the Act. A person who intentionally and without reasonable excuse fails to comply with this section's obligations commits a petty misdemeanor, and a corporation may separately be convicted of an offense under this Act.

What it requires

Vulnerability and incident reporting

Cybersecurity Act 2025, Cybersecurity Incident Reporting Obligations

Cybersecurity Act 2025, 40 MIRC Ch. 4 § 407 (P.L. 2025-0027)Republic of the Marshall Islands Nitijela legislation portal (rmiparliament.org)

archived copyRead from a public archive copy, not the publisher directly. The publisher does not serve this page to automated readers, so a direct fetch was not an option here; how we access sources. Archived 2026. Publisher's page: https://www.rmiparliament.org/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2025/2025-0027/2025-0027_1.pdf

In force since . Binds public and private bodies.

What this law does

Section 407 requires the same designated owner of critical information infrastructure to immediately notify the Director of the Office of National Security and the computer security incident response team (CSIRT)-MH of a significant cybersecurity incident affecting the critical information infrastructure, of a significant incident on any interconnected computer system under the owner's control, or of any other incident type the Director specifies by written order.

To comply, the owner must submit an early warning within twenty-four hours of becoming aware of the incident, a fuller notification with an initial severity and impact assessment within seventy-two hours, and a final report within thirty days of that notification, or, for an ongoing incident, a thirty-day progress report followed by a final report within thirty days of the incident's resolution.

The owner must also establish mechanisms and processes to promptly detect a cybersecurity threat, vulnerability, or incident affecting the critical information infrastructure. A person who intentionally and without reasonable excuse fails to make a notification under this section commits a petty misdemeanor.

What it requires

Where nothing was found4 areas of law

These areas of law were researched here and no instrument was recorded. Each finding says what the research checked, as of the date under it. It describes our search, not a guarantee that no such law exists.

AI law

The Marshall Islands has no AI-transparency, AI-risk-obligations, AI-training-data, or AI-prohibited-practices statute.

The Criminal Code of the Republic of the Marshall Islands 2011 (31 MIRC Ch. 1) contains no provision naming an artificial intelligence system, an automated decision-making process, or a computer-generated or AI-synthesised depiction; its general obscenity provisions (secs. 250.0-250.2) address only conduct in or affecting a public place, not the creation or distribution of synthetic content. The Republic has no national AI strategy or policy document.

As of .

Scraping law

The Marshall Islands has no scraping-specific statute, so general law is thin across each dimension. The Criminal Code of the Republic of the Marshall Islands 2011 (31 MIRC Ch. 1) contains no computer-misuse or unauthorized-access offence; its Article 224 (Forgery and Fraudulent Practices) reaches forged writings, credit cards, and counterfeit government instruments, not computer access or data, so open-web crawling of a public page carries no offence under the Code that has been located.

No Marshall Islands court decision on the enforceability of a browsewrap or clickwrap terms-of-service against a scraper has been located.

The Unauthorized Copies of Recorded Materials Act 1991 (20 MIRC Ch. 2), the Republic's only copyright-adjacent statute, criminalises unauthorized commercial reproduction of a sound recording or audiovisual work whose master was created in the Republic by a citizen, states no text-and-data-mining exception, and does not reach a general copyright or database right.

Personal data that a scraper collects from a Marshall Islands source falls, if at all, within the Personal Data Protection Act 2025 (6 MIRC Ch. 4) and section 250.12 of the Criminal Code, both researched under the privacy topic; the 2025 Act binds only core Government ministries and agencies and their third-party contractors, and section 250.12 bars intercepting a private communication or installing a device to surveil a private place without consent.

No statute or reported case establishes an unfair-competition, misappropriation, or trespass doctrine specific to scraping, or assigns legal weight to a robots.txt directive or an AI-training-specific rule.

As of .

Age gating law

The Marshall Islands has no adult-content age-verification law, social-media minor-access restriction, app-store age-verification requirement, or age-appropriate design code.

The Criminal Code of the Republic of the Marshall Islands 2011 (31 MIRC Ch. 1) defines 'obscene' material generally for its disorderly-conduct offence (secs. 250.0-250.2) without addressing an online service, a publisher, or an age-verification duty, and separately criminalises child abuse and neglect (sec. 230.3, by reference to the Child Abuse and Neglect Act, 26 MIRC Ch. 5) and trafficking in a child (sec. 251.8), neither of which imposes a gating or access-control duty on a publisher, exhibitor, or distributor.

The Personal Data Protection Act 2025 (6 MIRC Ch. 4), researched under the privacy topic, applies only to core Government ministries and agencies and contains no parental-consent or age-verification provision.

As of .

Reuse law

The Marshall Islands has no news-aggregation-specific statute: no press-publisher neighbouring right, compelled-bargaining regime, hot-news misappropriation doctrine, linking-and-framing rule, or text-and-data-mining opt-out has been located.

The Unauthorized Copies of Recorded Materials Act 1991 (20 MIRC Ch. 2), the Republic's only copyright-adjacent statute, criminalises transferring, selling, or renting equipment to reproduce a sound recording or audiovisual work for commercial gain without the consent of the owner of the master recording, but by its own terms reaches only a work whose master recording was created in the Republic and whose owner is a citizen of the Republic, and its territorial and citizenship limits lapse only upon the Government's ratification of an international copyright convention, which has not occurred as of the date below.

Nothing in its text addresses a headline, a snippet, or written journalism, and the Republic has no general copyright statute, text-and-data-mining exception, or database right.

As of .

Case law

  • No current case law for Marshall Islands AI law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands privacy law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands scraping law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands cybersecurity law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands communications law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands content moderation law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands product and AI liability law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands digital accessibility law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands age gating law
  • No current case law for Marshall Islands reuse law

Reporting clocks that run here1 instrument

The instruments whose obligation lines set a deadline for reporting an incident, a vulnerability or a personal-data breach, each deadline read from the sentence that carries it and listed shortest first. The law of the Marshall Islands comes first, then the law of the bodies above it that applies here.

Each flag is one law, and a link to it. Read down the scale: the clocks document's time axis, with the empty stretches shortened so the deadlines sit close. Flags on one line set the same duty at the same deadline, and the laws behind them are named to the right, with what each clock counts from.

24 hours
Early warningsecurity law
72 hours
Incident notificationsecurity law
30 days
Final reportsecurity law
The deadlines above on one time axis, shortest at the top. The axis keeps its order and, between neighbors, its proportion, but a stretch with no deadline on it is shortened, so the hour marks on the left are what say how far apart two stations really are. Beside each action, the laws that set it, what each counts from, and a status where the law is not yet in force. The List tab has the same data in full, with the sentences.

The law of the Marshall Islands

24 hours72 hours30 days

Cybersecurity Act 2025, Cybersecurity Incident Reporting Obligations

Cybersecurity Act 2025, 40 MIRC Ch. 4 § 407 (P.L. 2025-0027)security law, in force since

The sentences the clocks are read from

Immediately notify the Director and the computer security incident response team (CSIRT)-MH (the Cyber Security Incident Response Team of the Marshall Islands) of a significant cybersecurity incident affecting your critical information infrastructure, of a significant incident on any interconnected computer system under your control, or of any other incident type the Director specifies by written order.

Submit an early warning within twenty-four hours of becoming aware of the incident, a fuller notification with an initial severity and impact assessment within seventy-two hours, and a final report within thirty days of that notification, or, for an ongoing incident, a progress report within thirty days of that notification followed by a final report within thirty days of the handling of the incident.

Which of these one incident starts turns on the facts: the incident method works that through. The clocks document draws every clock in the LexLint law library on one axis, with the sentence beside every rung.

Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

This page covers the instruments LexLint has researched to a stage. Instruments named in the law library but not yet researched are counted in the head and are not listed here. Every entry carries its own primary source on its note page. This is a research index, not legal advice.