3. Country Analysis: Costa Rica

3.1 Political and Legal System

Costa Rica has a presidential system of government and legislative initiatives may be proposed by either the Legislative or Executive branch. In the Central American region, it has been characterized by maintaining high standards of democratic quality and, despite recent declines in The Economist's Democracy Index, it remains classified as a full democracy.

The functioning of the political system is configured by three Branches of Government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) and a Supreme Electoral Tribunal which holds the same constitutional rank. It has maintained free and consecutive national elections since 1953 and currently its electoral contests elect the authorities of the Executive and Legislative branches every 4 years, with a mid-term election for elected local government authorities, who are also appointed for 4 years.

Costa Rica has concentrated constitutional review, and grants the Supreme Electoral Tribunal exclusive and exclusionary constitutional interpretation authority in electoral matters. This latter body has a dual function: it serves as the election administration and civil registry; and additionally, it has constitutional powers as a jurisdictional authority for the protection of political rights.

The organization of the State, in addition to the powers of these branches, is decentralized at the institutional level among Ministries, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions; and separately, in a territorial decentralization of 7 provinces with 84 municipalities, each composed of Mayoralties and Municipal Councils.

3.2 Freedom of Expression and Human Rights

Freedom of expression (article 29), the right to access to information (article 27), and the right to telecommunications (article 24) are provisions established by express text of the Constitution and developed at the jurisprudential level by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.

The country is one of the principal destinations for exile for Central American and Latin American journalists¹⁸, although the latest report from the OAS special rapporteur for freedom of expression warned about difficulties that have recently worsened for these persons, mainly due to cost of living and citizen insecurity, which has led them to engage in other professional fields. The positions and results in indices and reports on freedom of expression for this country are as follows:

Judicial protection of both freedom and access to information and of freedom of expression falls to the Constitutional Chamber through the amparo remedy; when those same freedoms are at stake in the context of electoral campaigns, the exercise of political rights, or grievances affecting elected representatives, the matter is handled as an amparo before the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE).

Additionally, the country has three administrative bodies involved in this matter. The first is the Data Protection Agency for Inhabitants (Agencia de Protección de Datos de los Habitantes), which handles administrative claims regarding the misuse of data, images, or personal information. This office also manages requests related to the right to be forgotten, for persons seeking the removal of news articles or digital content that is more than 10 years old and no longer of public interest.

The second related institution is the Office of Propaganda Control (Oficina de Control de Propaganda), whose jurisdiction is limited to moderating advertising — not editorial content — that makes improper, violent, or inappropriate use of the image of women or older adults, as well as setting the permitted time slots for television content.

Additionally, the Telecommunications Superintendency (SUTEL) functions as a technical and administrative body with respect to the regulations governing the provision of public services, infrastructure, and the deployment of communication networks and use of the radio spectrum. Its role is chiefly to regulate and supervise competition rules among the private parties granted concessions to use the telecommunications spectrum.

Although it is not an administrative body exclusively oriented toward digital platform governance, the General Directorate of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación), under the Ministry of Finance, was found to play an important role in this area. Following a 2018 tax reform, the State was legally empowered to collect a 13% Value Added Tax on cross-border digital services. The list of platforms subject to this tax is not exhaustive by law; this delegates to the General Directorate of Taxation the authority to set its own criteria, add and remove platforms through administrative resolutions, and establish the procedure for collecting the tax.

According to official records from the Constitutional Chamber, in 2024, 41 amparo proceedings were filed alleging violations of freedom of expression and of the press; likewise, 3,130 petitions were filed concerning the right of petition and access to information. Taken together, these proceedings represented 8% of the cases handled by the Constitutional Chamber that year.¹⁹ 49% of those cases were granted in full or in part.

Recently, there have been setbacks regarding the protection of access to information in the electoral context. An NGO connected to persons deprived of liberty under high-containment and maximum-security regimes filed an amparo claim before the TSE, arguing that these individuals could not stay informed because the penitentiary facility has no televisions. This was because the Judge of Guarantees (responsible for sentence enforcement) had so ordered by resolution. The amparo motion was rejected for lack of standing. Persons deprived of liberty under other, less restrictive prison regimes do have regulated access to television broadcasts.

Another related case was resolved by the electoral body in favor of a candidate who, during a campaign, blocked a user on the social network X. The claimant argued before the TSE that the block prevented him from accessing the candidate's campaign information. In Resolution No. 3252-E1-2018, the TSE held that “the data disclosed on those platforms, even when related to the party’s political agenda, does not have the effect of making the profile used by the candidate public; that is, its use and administration remain private in nature, and the State must therefore refrain from taking any action that limits the autonomy of its owners.”

Two recent reports on the state of freedom of expression and human rights in Costa Rica are relevant in this context. The first was produced by the UN University for Peace, which is headquartered in Costa Rica. The second was produced by the University of Costa Rica.

Both agree that recent years have reflected a deterioration in the quality of freedom of expression, press freedom, and access to information, driven primarily by practices such as:

• Restrictions or obstacles to access to public information, as state institutions often provide data or documents in an illegible or incomplete form. In addition, in proceedings on key matters — such as sanctions for alleged irregular electoral financing — officials invoke their right to remain silent, further reducing informational transparency.

• The lack of web accessibility on public institution websites constitutes an obstacle to citizens’ right to information, disproportionately affecting people with disabilities and thereby limiting the capacity to receive quality information as an exercise of freedom of expression.

• Both reports document the emergence of fake profiles and anonymous accounts used to promote attacks. Online intimidation of critical journalists by government officials or “trolls” is documented. A related issue appearing in both reports is public debate about the government’s allocation of advertising spending to certain sectors exclusively, as well as denigrating remarks by official authorities directed at particular media outlets and journalists.

While some of these situations have been addressed through constitutional review, others have gone unprotected or unanswered. The reports point to the lack of regulation on transparency and content moderation on digital platforms as leaving such practices unchecked.

3.3 Digital Environment

The most recent report published by the Telecommunications Superintendency (SUTEL) notes that, as of 2024, the mobile telephone subscription rate per inhabitant stood at 132%,²⁰ corresponding to just over 5 million individual mobile internet subscriptions.

An Opensignal report using 2024 data highlighted the ongoing 5G deployment process in the country,²¹ noting that SUTEL relaunched the spectrum auction for 5G, covering bands including 700 MHz, 2.3 GHz, 3.5 GHz, 26 GHz, and 28 GHz. Users of the three main mobile internet operators in Costa Rica have 4G coverage at least 73% of the time; however, commercial 5G availability remains limited, with fewer than 1% of Liberty Costa Rica customers having 5G access and being under 5G coverage only 6% of the time at the moment of the analysis.²²

Data available from DataReportal shows that social media adoption is nearly universal: almost half of the population aged 18 and over (86.6%) is present on at least one social network. The average Costa Rican user is approximately 35 years old and lives predominantly in urban areas (approximately 83% urban population). The gender distribution is balanced, with women representing approximately 48–51% of users.²³

Geographically, 80% of the population lives in cities — primarily in the Greater Metropolitan Area — with the provinces of San José and Alajuela concentrating the largest share of active users. By age group, the most active users are young people and young adults; studies by Porter Novelli 506²⁴ show that the 13–34 age group accounts for approximately 60% of TikTok and general social media usage. On platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, users under 35 predominate, while Facebook is very popular among those over 35. Overall, adoption is growing across all demographic groups, though penetration is higher among younger users for emerging platforms such as TikTok or Snapchat.

As noted above, a fiscal reform approved in recent years extended the application of value-added tax to digital services provided by platforms on a cross-border basis. Although this reporting could help track collection amounts by platform, individual platform-level data is not broken down. The tax was first collected in October 2020, when the Ministry of Finance reported revenue of USD 1.4 million for that month;²⁵ by August 2025, that figure had risen to USD 3.2 million — meaning that in roughly four years, the government’s revenue from this fiscal component has doubled.

3.4 Digital Platforms Available in the Country

Costa Rica has no official registry establishing legal domicile for digital platforms in the country. The only legal obligation applies to services involving a payment subject to the value-added tax described in the previous section. According to the Ministry of Finance, as of December 2024 a formal list of 161 platforms was subject to the consumption tax on their services.

Starting in 2026, a resolution will require platforms to report to the Ministry of Finance the income digitally generated by content creators and similar individuals, with the aim of extending income tax obligations to these individuals. Under Article 1 of the resolution, Digital Platform Operators must comply with registration and information obligations with respect to income obtained by sellers engaged in relevant activities offering accommodation, transportation, and personal services through platforms.

A 2022 study by Porter Novelli identified the distribution of users by platform as follows:

In the electoral arena, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) has announced the establishment of specific collaboration agreements with digital platforms, primarily with Meta. However, these agreements do not constitute formal legal domiciliation in the country; rather, they serve as communication channels between the electoral body and the platforms for content moderation in complaints filed during campaign periods.

Although parties’ financial records are public, there is no unified list of expenditures by political groups on digital content and platforms in the electoral context.

3.5 Legislative and Regulatory Context in Costa Rica

3.5.1 Constitutional Framework

The country protects freedom of expression and of the press, the privacy of communications, and access to information directly in the text of the Constitution. In addition, through its interpretive case law, the Constitutional Chamber has incorporated these rights into the “bloque de convencionalidad” (conventionality block) or Inter-American corpus iuris, thereby bringing the holdings, judgments, and advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court that relate to these fundamental rights into the domestic legal order. As noted above, constitutional review in Costa Rica is concentrated in a single court.

With respect to the right of rectification and reply, that protection is also available against private parties where a violation to the detriment of individuals or private persons is shown to have occurred; recently, however, rulings have denied constitutional protection of that right where what was affected was the image or name of a public institution. In the electoral sphere, the incorporation of the conventionality block has focused on content restrictions and media oversight tied to prohibitions on public officials and other branches of government. This is a prohibition set out in the Electoral Code, under which government bodies and public institutions in general are barred from touting their administrative accomplishments through social media, the press, or any other means of dissemination, from the moment elections are called. A prior interpretation by the TSE had limited this prohibition, with respect to digital platform content, to publications involving paid promotion only. Beginning in 2025, the electoral jurisprudence incorporated the Inter-American rulings Gadea Mantilla v. Nicaragua and Capriles v. Venezuela; as a result, the TSE interpreted that the blackout on this type of content must apply regardless of whether institutions paid the platforms for the promotion or not.

3.5.2 Telecommunications and Media Legislation

The telecommunications sector is governed by the General Telecommunications Law (Ley General de Telecomunicaciones, LGT, Law No. 8642),²⁷ whose primary objective is to regulate the use and operation of networks and the provision of telecommunications services. The law is grounded in guiding principles such as universality (guaranteeing a minimum level of service without discrimination) and solidarity (establishing access mechanisms for lower-income individuals and special groups).

The LGT defines networks as transmission systems that use various media, including radio waves, cable, and networks used for audio and television broadcasting, as well as cable television networks. It does not refer to digital networks or platforms of this kind. Operating and exploiting telecommunications networks that require use of the radio spectrum requires a concession; for public networks, the concession authorizes its holder to provide any type of telecommunications service available to the public.

With respect to media outlets and the press that use the spectrum (audio and television broadcasting), their operation is considered a private activity of public interest owing to its informational, cultural, and recreational dimensions. The granting and provision of these free-access services (not requiring a subscription payment) continue to be governed by Radio Law No. 1758²⁸ and its Regulations.²⁹ However, the networks that support these services remain subject to the LGT with respect to matters such as spectrum planning and control, access, interconnection, and the sector’s competition regime.

Digital identity regulation is addressed through the Law on Digital Certificates, Digital Signatures and Electronic Documents (Law No. 8454),³⁰ which applies to all types of transactions and legal acts, both public and private. This law grants functional equivalence to electronic documents with respect to traditional paper documents, and its scope covers any natural or legal person who uses electronic means for transactions or legal acts in Costa Rica.

3.5.3 Specific Regulation on Platforms and/or Content Regulation

Until the passage of the Digital Services and E-Commerce Governance Law in April 2026 (see section 3.5.7), Costa Rica lacked specific legislation directly regulating digital platforms. The only legal reference to platforms was found in the 2018 tax reform, limited to the collection of Value Added Tax on digital services.³¹ The new law inaugurates a comprehensive regulatory framework for the sector, though the other provisions described below remain in force as components of the broader regulatory landscape.

The specific tax regulation recognizes platforms for tax purposes under these provisions in two scenarios: first, the sale of digital or telecommunications services carried out over the internet or any other digital platform and paid for through an international debit or credit card issuer, or through a provider or intermediary domiciled abroad; and second, the sale of intangible services or goods carried out over the internet or any other digital platform and paid for through a public or private entity, from a bank account that facilitates payment to the account of a seller or provider not domiciled in the country.

A further legal mention of platforms appears in the personal data protection regulatory framework. The Regulation³² of the Personal Data Protection Law³³ uses the term “Technological Intermediary or Service Provider” to refer to the natural or legal person who, by contract, provides data processing services to a data controller. This framing places platforms squarely within the scope of the data protection regime when they process personal data on behalf of a controller.

3.5.4 Data Protection and Privacy Legislation

Costa Rica has a dedicated statute on personal data protection and privacy: Law No. 8968,³⁴ whose purpose is to guarantee every person the fundamental right to informational self-determination with regard to their private life or activities. The law regulates the flow of information concerning each person, so as to prevent discriminatory practices from arising. Its scope covers personal data held in databases — whether automated or manual — including when the data is held in the cloud.

The law formalizes the requirement of informed consent, mandating that the collection of personal data be carried out with the express consent of the data subject, which must be free, specific, informed, and unequivocal, and must be recorded in writing, whether in a physical or electronic document. Consent may be revoked in the same manner, although without retroactive effect. The law also prohibits the collection of data without consent, or data obtained through fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful means.

Regarding its application to platforms, the Regulation clarifies that the data controller — the owner or administrator who determines the purpose of processing — that contracts or subcontracts the services of a technological intermediary (platforms, software, infrastructure) retains responsibility for the processing of that personal data. Controllers must adopt security measures, and PRODHAB may require minimum security protocols to verify compliance in response to complaints.

The right of access to information is guaranteed, as well as the ability to request rectification, updating, or deletion (erasure) of personal data. With respect to the right to be forgotten, the retention of personal data that could affect the data subject may not exceed ten years from the date on which the purpose of the processing was completed, except where the law provides otherwise.

3.5.5 Specific Regulation for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups

First, Law No. 10267³⁵ prohibits the dissemination of propaganda that degrades the dignity, honor, or image of older adults, or that promotes myths and/or stereotypes against old age and the aging process. Its scope of application explicitly includes propaganda distributed via social media, video games, digital services, or other platforms present on the Internet, as well as downloadable audiovisual material. The Office of Propaganda Control (OCP) may order the immediate withdrawal of such propaganda as a precautionary measure.

The second area of protection concerns gender-based violence in commercial advertising, whether digital or analog. Law No. 5811³⁶ controls and regulates commercial propaganda that offends dignity or family decency, or that uses the image of women indecently to promote sales. Press, radio, film, and television companies — and, in general, any entity that operates an individual or collective communication medium — are subsidiarily liable for infringements. This type of propaganda requires the prior and express approval of the OCP. It is also established that propaganda that offends dignity or is indecent is absolutely prohibited in programs or activities aimed at minors.

Finally, the General Telecommunications Law prohibits the use of automated voice, fax, or email calling systems for direct sales purposes without the prior consent of users. Additionally, sending direct marketing electronic messages that conceal or hide the identity of the sender is prohibited.

3.5.6 Digital Electoral Regulation

Costa Rica lacks a dedicated regulatory framework for disinformation in electoral campaigns; the issue has been addressed primarily through the jurisprudence of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE). There are at least two areas on which that legal interpretation is concentrated.

The first concerns the blackout (veda) applicable to government institutions regarding the dissemination of achievements and praise of their administrative performance during the campaign period. Through Resolution No. 4190-E8-2025,³⁷ the TSE adjusted its criteria regarding the scope of Article 142 of the Electoral Code³⁸ in the sense that institutions must comply with the restriction both in traditional media and in institutional communication media and digital platforms, whether or not payment is involved.

On the other hand, the TSE recognizes as a campaign expenditure the purchase of services and advertising from digital platforms, for which it requires each political party to provide the links or accounts it will use in the electoral contest and from which advertising will be acquired. This approach generates a minimum level of traceability for digital campaign spending but does not constitute a comprehensive regime for transparency in online political advertising.

3.5.7 The Digital Services and E-Commerce Governance Law (2026): A Regulatory Milestone

On April 16, 2026, the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica approved in its second debate the Digital Services and E-Commerce Governance Law (Expediente N.° 23.184), making the country the first in Central America to have a comprehensive legal instrument designed to regulate digital platforms and services. The law will enter into force twelve months after its publication in the Official Gazette (La Gaceta), a transition period during which market participants must adapt their operations to the new regulatory framework.

The initiative, originally introduced in 2022 by Representative Kattia Cambronero Aguiluz and other legislators, drew inspiration from two key international references: the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce and the European Electronic Commerce Directive, as well as the European Union's proposed Digital Services Regulation (Digital Services Act, DSA). After a process that included the issuance of a technical-legal opinion in 2023, a unanimous affirmative committee opinion from the Special Standing Committee on Science, Technology and Education in April 2024, and the incorporation of twenty-four approved motions out of forty-six submitted, the final text was adopted in 2026.

The law organizes its content around four substantive pillars. The first regulates e-commerce and imposes transparency obligations on online merchants: full identification of the seller, detailed description of the product or service, complete price breakdown, and pre-transaction confirmation; it also expressly prohibits “dark patterns” — interface designs that manipulate consumers into unintended decisions. The second pillar establishes a liability regime for digital intermediaries — hosting platforms, search engines and others — modeled on the “safe harbor” approach: liability limitation is conditioned on compliance with specific requirements, including implementation of illegal content reporting mechanisms and internal complaints systems. The third pillar strengthens personal data protection, with mandatory security measures, restrictions on the use of data from children under thirteen for advertising purposes, and express protection of end-to-end encryption. Finally, the fourth pillar regulates digital advertising: mandatory identification of advertisements, disclosure of funding sources, transparency regarding targeting criteria, and prohibition of unsolicited commercial communications.

The law also includes specific provisions for the FinTech sector: companies must implement secure electronic payment systems, disclose applicable security levels and certifications, and ensure immediate transaction notification. Regarding sanctions, serious violations can result in fines of approximately USD 42,500.

From the perspective of alignment with UNESCO’s Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms, the passage of this law represents the most significant regulatory advance recorded in Costa Rica in the field of digital governance. The UNESCO Guidelines articulate their requirements around pillars such as platform transparency and accountability, protection of user rights, effective redress mechanisms, and independent oversight. On several of these fronts, the new law constitutes a concrete step forward: for the first time, Costa Rica has a conditional liability regime for digital intermediaries — aligned with the principle that platforms should neither be immune from all responsibility nor be absolute insurers of third-party content — explicit transparency standards for consumers, and mandatory complaints mechanisms. The prohibition of dark patterns is particularly significant from a user rights perspective, as it directly targets manipulative design practices that the Guidelines identify as a threat to user autonomy and informed decision-making. Equally noteworthy is the express protection of end-to-end encryption, which reinforces privacy and freedom of communication guarantees against potential state interference.

However, a rigorous comparison with the UNESCO Guidelines reveals requirements that the law does not meet. First, the Guidelines call on States to promote algorithmic transparency: platforms must be able to explain how their recommendation, ranking, and automated moderation systems affect users and the public sphere. The enacted law is silent on this dimension: it establishes no algorithm audit obligations, does not require explainability of recommendation systems, and provides no mechanisms for independent oversight of platforms’ internal operations.

Second, the Guidelines promote systemic risk management — periodic assessments of platforms’ impact on human rights, public health, or electoral integrity — a dimension absent from the Costa Rican law.

Third, while the law requires intermediaries to implement illegal content reporting mechanisms, it does not establish a content moderation regime that guarantees due process for affected users: prior notice, the possibility of appeal, and transparency about the criteria applied, as the Guidelines require in their freedom-of-expression protection dimension.

Finally, the law does not create an independent regulatory body with specific competences over digital platforms, leaving enforcement in the hands of general-purpose institutions whose specialized technical capacity is not guaranteed.

Overall, the Digital Services and E-Commerce Governance Law positions Costa Rica as a regional reference point: it is the first Central American country with a comprehensive framework of this kind and advances significantly further than any other country in the region — except Panama in the electoral domain and Mexico with its own regulation — has achieved to date. The twelve-month vacatio legis period represents a strategic opportunity for civil society, academia, and state institutions to promote the development of complementary regulations that close the remaining gaps — in particular, the regulation of algorithmic systems, content moderation with due process guarantees, and the creation of a supervisory authority with sufficient independence and technical capacity to engage with major platforms on equal terms. Without those complementary pieces, the regulatory framework will remain incomplete relative to the most demanding international standards for digital governance.

3.6 Alignment with UNESCO Guidelines: Costa Rica

The analysis of Costa Rica’s alignment with the UNESCO Guidelines reveals that the country has a robust constitutional framework, both substantive and procedural, guaranteeing access to information, freedom of expression and of the press, privacy of communications, and the right to telecommunications.

Through constitutional interpretation, it has been established that international treaties and conventions expanding fundamental rights, together with Inter-American jurisprudence, hold a rank superior to the Constitution itself and are immediately applicable. This ensures a solid normative basis for protecting individual and collective freedoms.

However, the effective enforcement of these rights faces significant operational challenges, as claims are concentrated exclusively in the Constitutional Chamber — a system that, while free of charge and free of formalities, suffers from marked territorial centralization. Regarding the sectoral regulatory framework, the 2026 passage of the Digital Services and E-Commerce Governance Law has partially addressed the existing gap by introducing, for the first time, transparency obligations for online merchants and complaint mechanisms against intermediaries. Nevertheless, the law does not include specific content moderation obligations in the strict sense, nor a fully developed consumer protection framework covering all scenarios involving cross-border digital services, meaning that areas in need of further regulatory development remain.

In the absence of a comprehensive sectoral law defining clear criteria for content restriction, the application of the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality falls to the case-by-case analysis conducted by the Constitutional Chamber. Its jurisprudence requires that any restriction on freedoms be grounded in a public, clear, and accessible law, and that the measure adopted be appropriate, foreseeable, and the least restrictive possible.

In practice, the current limitations derive from dispersed regulations in areas such as criminal law, electoral law, and data protection. This lack of a single statutory framework produces a fragmented regulatory landscape in which different authorities apply varying criteria depending on whether the focus is fiscal, telecommunications-related, or electoral.

With the passage of the Digital Services and E-Commerce Governance Law (2026), Costa Rica introduces for the first time a conditional liability regime for digital platforms modeled on the “safe harbor” approach: intermediary liability exemption is conditioned on compliance with specific legal requirements, including the implementation of illegal content reporting mechanisms and internal complaint systems. This represents a substantial improvement over the previous landscape. However, in the electoral sphere the problem persists: the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) continues to depend on voluntary collaboration agreements with platforms and lacks its own enforcement tools to address potential non-compliance in digital campaigning.

The 2026 Digital Services Law advances on some of these fronts: it imposes transparency obligations regarding terms and conditions and establishes user complaint systems. However, significant gaps remain: the law does not include algorithmic audit requirements, does not contemplate systemic risk management obligations, and does not regulate transparency regarding the operation of recommendation systems. In this sense, the resulting framework is more complete than what preceded it, but continues to fall short of the standards set by other laws — such as the European Digital Services Act — regarding obligations on platforms’ internal operations.

Likewise, while constitutional principles against arbitrary suspensions exist, there is no specific regime expressly prohibiting state blocking of platforms without an enforceable judicial procedure, nor is there a general provision regulating the surveillance obligations of these companies.

Regarding the protection of vulnerable groups, while criminal laws and specific regulations defend minors, women, and older adults against offensive propaganda and exploitation, there are no direct sectoral obligations requiring platforms to implement preventive mechanisms such as content filters or age verification. A similar situation applies to the fight against disinformation, which is managed primarily by the TSE on a temporary basis during electoral processes through voluntary agreements, without constituting permanent regulation.

Finally, the legal framework does not require platforms to provide user empowerment tools, leaving digital literacy relegated to national strategies and public policies that operate as isolated initiatives and have yet to achieve widespread coverage.