7. Country Analysis: Mexico

7.1 Political and Legal System

Under the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1917, Mexico is constituted as a federal republic governed by a presidential political system. The Executive Branch is headed by the President of the Republic, who is elected through universal direct suffrage for a six-year term without the possibility of reelection, supported by a cabinet composed of 19 secretariats.

At the territorial level, the country is organized into 32 autonomous federal entities (31 states and Mexico City), which are subdivided into 2,469 municipalities—called mayoralties in the capital—and smaller localities, whether rural or urban. The federal Legislative Branch resides in the Congress of the Union, a bicameral body endowed with broad competencies, such as the direction of foreign policy and the ratification of high-ranking positions. It is composed of the Chamber of Deputies (500 members renewable every three years) and the Senate (128 members elected for six years), combining in both chambers the principles of relative majority and proportional representation, and permitting consecutive reelection within limits.

For its part, the Judicial Branch is headed by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), the country's highest court, composed of eleven justices who operate in plenary and in two chambers to handle constitutional, criminal, civil, labor, and administrative matters.

Finally, this system of separation of powers is replicated at the local level due to the duality of Mexico's legal and administrative system. Each state has a governor who exercises the Executive Branch for a non-renewable six-year term, a state legislature of a unicameral nature, and its own Superior Court of Justice, which applies the corresponding local legislation. Additionally, municipal governments, which form the basis of local government, are generally elected for three-year periods, with the legal possibility of reelection in accordance with what the federal Constitution and each state's constitution establish.

Beginning in December 2024, a process of structural changes to various Mexican government institutions commenced, where far-reaching legislative and constitutional reforms have been promoted that affect key areas such as transparency, personal data protection, economic competition, and telecommunications. A central axis is the so-called constitutional reform regarding organizational simplification, which was published on December 20, 2024. This reform modified various articles of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (CPEUM) and ordered the extinction of several autonomous bodies, including the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection (INAI), the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE), and the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT)¹²⁸.

The Mexican government has defended the simplification and centralization of agencies as a measure aimed at improving administrative efficiency. According to its proposals, this restructuring will allow resources to be managed more efficiently, reduce operational costs, and foster greater coordination between different public policies. In parallel, it is argued that the existing models for competitiveness, telecommunications, and personal data regulation required modernization to adapt to the challenges of an increasingly globalized digital and economic context. The objective is for regulations to respond more effectively to the dynamics of digital platforms and transnational information flows.

As part of this reform, it is proposed that the so-called "obligated subjects" in matters of access to information and personal data protection transition to be governed by a unified general law.¹²⁹ In the field of economic competition, the reform proposed a "new authority" to apply policies and sanctions, reducing thresholds for concentration reviews and strengthening the application of enforcement services.¹³⁰ This measure seeks to standardize procedures and obligations, facilitating coherent and harmonized management throughout the country.

The reforms promoted by the Mexican government present significant relevance at different levels. First, from the perspective of governance, there is a profound redefinition of key regulatory and supervisory bodies, consolidating a more centralized structure and modifying the role of traditional autonomous entities.

In the economic sphere, strengthening competition and regulating strategic sectors, especially telecommunications, aims to promote investment and innovation. Additionally, it seeks to reduce entry barriers, thereby facilitating access for new actors to the market and promoting greater revitalization in sectors historically dominated by few companies.

On the other hand, concerning digital rights and data management, reforms in transparency and personal data protection seek to establish a new legal architecture suitable for the contemporary digital environment. For example, the proposed changes in the telecommunications sector require the Executive Branch, through the competent body, to guarantee the right of access to information and communication technologies, as well as to broadcasting and telecommunications services, including broadband and Internet access.

The institutional impact of these reforms manifests in the dissolution of autonomous bodies and the transfer of their powers to the Executive Branch or new entities. This process generates broad debate about the need to maintain checks and balances, ensure transparency, promote accountability, and preserve regulatory autonomy. A clear example of this concern is the warning from various sectors about the possible weakening of public information access mechanisms following the disappearance of INAI.¹³¹

Simultaneously, the strengthening of competition law through the implementation of stricter sanctions and the reduction of thresholds for intervention seeks to send a clear signal of greater oversight and regulation to economic actors,¹³² which is especially relevant in sectors characterized by the existence of barriers and concentration among a few dominant companies.

The legislative and constitutional reforms promoted in Mexico during the 2024-2025 period have as their main objective to provide the Mexican State with updated legal, institutional, and regulatory tools. The proponents of these reforms consider it fundamental that the country have modern mechanisms to face contemporary challenges, among which stand out the digital economy, the presence of highly concentrated markets, the need for universal connectivity, and the proper management of personal data.

In this context, the aim is to improve the efficiency of the state apparatus through the reduction of bureaucracy and the simplification of structures. This evolution seeks to align Mexican regulatory institutions with the demands and dynamics of a globalized environment, characterized by rapid technological evolution and growing market interdependence.

In essence, the purpose of the reforms is to redefine the regulatory framework in key areas such as transparency, personal data protection, economic competition, and telecommunications. Their purpose is to expand citizens' access to digital services, ensure greater competition in markets, and promote a more agile and less fragmented public administration. All of this responds to the need to adapt the State and its institutions to the demands of the twenty-first century, facilitating Mexico's integration into the global digital economy and ensuring the protection of citizens' rights in the digital environment.

7.2 Freedom of Expression and Human Rights

Mexico formally recognizes freedom of expression and press in Articles 6 and 7 of its Political Constitution, which guarantee the free dissemination of opinions and ideas. This legal framework is complemented by the integration into the constitutional block of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, which impose on the State the inalienable obligation to protect the active exercise of seeking, receiving, and disseminating information. Despite this formal normative and democratic framework, freedom of expression in the country faces systemic challenges, characterized by a highly dangerous environment for the exercise of journalism.

Physical and institutional violence represents the greatest challenge to freedoms of expression and press. Mexico is consistently ranked as one of the most dangerous countries in the world to practice journalism, as reflected in a drop of three positions in the 2025 World Index of Press Freedom by Reporters Without Borders. This situation is aggravated by the infiltration of organized crime into public life, which generates hybrid forms of intrusion where criminals, often in collusion with local authorities, coerce the press. This dynamic has led to the appearance of "silenced zones" throughout the national territory, where self-censorship prevails, limiting what journalists can publish or forcing them to spread messages dictated by organized crime. All of this operates under a mantle of structural impunity where 99.6% of crimes against the press go unpunished.

The right to freedom of expression is configured as a faculty that allows people to seek, receive, and disseminate information and ideas of any nature, constituting one of the essential pillars in the functioning of democratic societies. This dimension acquires particular relevance in electoral scenarios, where free access to information about candidates, proposals, and party profiles is indispensable for citizens to form their opinions and make informed decisions.

In this sense, during electoral periods, States assume the responsibility to guarantee suitable conditions for the full exercise of freedom of expression. It is essential to foster a free and open environment in which the debate of ideas can develop without undue restrictions. To achieve this, the State must refrain from implementing any form of censorship, whether direct or indirect, ensuring that information of public interest is accessible to citizens.

Although the State has implemented formal tools such as the Law for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists (2012)¹³⁴ and its respective Protection Mechanism at the federal level, these instances operate with serious budgetary deficiencies, lack of trained personnel, and coordination problems with local authorities. Additionally, the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes Against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) has failed to dismantle impunity or recover public confidence; it frequently dismisses the link between crimes and victims' journalistic work, and has suffered severe budget cuts that impair its investigative capabilities.

Security challenges present, moreover, acute intersectional vulnerabilities that aggravate risk for certain groups. Community and indigenous journalists face continuous physical aggression and racial discrimination, often operating in remote areas with scarce resources and under siege by non-state actors. For their part, women journalists must deal with specific forms of harassment, online violence, labor disparity, and a notable lack of gender perspective in the stages of criminal investigation and state protection.

Beyond physical violence, freedom of expression is besieged through tactics of criminalization, indirect censorship, and political hostility. In 2025, judicial harassment of journalists experienced a 143% increase, with prosecutors and courts being used to pressure reporters through defamation proceedings. There is misuse of civil lawsuits brought by public officials demanding exorbitant monetary damages, generating a deliberate chilling effect on journalistic investigation. To this pressure is added the constant stigmatization of critical activists and media from government conferences, a practice that has gone to the extreme of publicly revealing personal data of international journalists.

Furthermore, Congress approved reforms in 2024 to abolish fundamental autonomous bodies such as the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection (INAI),¹³⁵ which strengthens a culture of opacity that makes it easier to hide information about human rights violations.

Finally, the media and digital ecosystem faces normative obstacles that restrict pluralism. The discretionary distribution of official advertising persists as a historical mechanism of editorial control, lacking objective rules that prevent abuse and excessive public spending.

In the digital sphere, the landscape darkens due to the prevalence of unmonitored surveillance and espionage against defenders and communicators. Additionally, recent telecommunications reforms authorize authorities to remove content from platforms under state criteria that can be ambiguous. Taken together, this multiplicity of physical, institutional, legal, and digital challenges severely compromises Mexican citizens' right to be informed freely, pluralistically, and safely.

Freedom of expression online in Mexico has faced significant deterioration, marked by increased violence and the use of legal mechanisms for censorship, which represents a challenge to the public sphere and to democracy. The situation is characterized by the persistence of physical and psychological aggression against journalists and communicators, in addition to the implementation of new intimidation strategies. Violence not only comes from non-state actors, but government authorities themselves remain as principal aggressors, as published in the 2024 report by the civil organization Freedom House and highlighted by the Network in Defense of Digital Rights (R3D).

For example, content moderation in Mexico has a direct impact on journalistic work, especially through internal decisions of social media platforms and web hosting services, via the "notice and takedown" mechanism. This procedure has led to the removal of journalistic work carried out by journalists, activists, and other civil society actors, under the argument of alleged copyright infringements by third parties. However, in most cases, the content fully corresponded to the authorship of the affected journalist, limiting the exercise of freedom of expression both as a creator and as a citizen.

The notices that support these removals refer to the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This law allows copyright holders to send a notice to the service provider to have the allegedly infringing content removed immediately, often without a legal review process, but through automated systems. The result is the removal of legitimate content, affecting the circulation of information and restricting the freedom of expression rights of journalists and citizens.

During the 2024 electoral cycle, digital conversation in Mexico was characterized by the growing presence of disinformation and the use of generative artificial intelligence. These factors contributed significantly to social polarization and distrust in both the media and various organizations. The proliferation of false information and content manipulation generated informational confusion among citizens, affecting society's ability to distinguish trustworthy and reliable sources. As a consequence, a noticeable erosion of public trust in traditional and digital information channels was observed.

In parallel with the disinformation problem, the National Electoral Institute (INE) intervened by granting provisional measures in favor of women candidates who reported political violence based on gender allegedly perpetrated by journalists, columnists, and digital media. This institutional action demonstrates the complexity of the digital environment, in which actions to protect fundamental rights can come into conflict with journalistic work and the exercise of freedom of expression. The process evidenced the need to find a balance between protecting vulnerable groups and respecting the right to inform and express oneself in the digital space.

Already in 2025, the national political debate revolved around the proposed telecommunications law reform, which contemplated the power to block digital platforms. This provision was flagged by various critics as a potentially censorious measure, capable of restricting freedom of expression and access to information. Facing the controversy, President Claudia Sheinbaum opted to stop the advancement of the reform and called for thematic roundtables with experts to discuss and review the controversial article. This episode illustrated the existing tensions between the need to regulate the digital ecosystem and the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights online, a constant struggle in which civil society organizations, academics, and digital regulation specialists actively participated.

Digital surveillance and the use of spyware, such as Pegasus, continue to be a cause of political and social concern. In 2025, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (RELE CIDH) compiled evidence of spying cases in Mexico, including relevant incidents that occurred in 2023. These practices affected journalists, academics, and people involved in sensitive investigations, adding to harassment and doxxing campaigns that seek to intimidate and displace critical voices from the public sphere. Together, disinformation, ambiguous regulatory proposals, intimidatory litigation, and surveillance constitute the main current challenges to freedom of expression online in Mexico.

7.3 Digital Environment

In recent years, Mexico has experienced sustained growth in its digital infrastructure, allowing connectivity to reach increasingly broad sectors of the population, including children and adolescents. According to the National Survey on Availability and Use of Information Technologies in Households 2024 (ENDUTIH), published by INEGI in May 2025, it is estimated that 100.2 million people aged six and older use the Internet, representing 83.1% of the Mexican population in that age range. This advance represents an increase of almost two percentage points from the previous year, consolidating Internet access as a fundamental part of daily life for interaction, education, and entertainment.

The ENDUTIH study provides a broad overview of access to and use of digital devices in Mexican society. It highlights the role of groups with greater Internet penetration. In particular, 95.1% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 are active users, a figure very close to 97% of young people ages 18 to 24. For their part, children ages 6 to 11 also maintain high access levels, although the daily average connection time is lower compared to adolescents and young adults. In 2024, children ages 6 to 11 reported an average of 2.6 hours daily of Internet use, while adolescents ages 12 to 17 reached 3.0 hours per day. These data reflect that the incorporation of Mexican children into the digital environment occurs at early ages and with different levels of intensity.

The 2024 ENDUTIH indicates that 97.2% of Internet users in Mexico connect through a smartphone, confirming mobile telephony as the primary digital access tool. This pattern is especially relevant for minors, as it facilitates mobility and immediate access to social networks, educational platforms, and entertainment content.

Additionally, 43.6% of users employ smart televisions, 35.9% use computers (laptop, PC, or tablet), and 8.1% access via video game consoles. The following table shows the age range and the percentage of Internet users that gives an approximation of the average daily use of devices during the 2024 survey results.

Table 6. Internet Users in Mexico by Age Group

Age Group	% of Internet Users	Average Daily Hours of Use (2024)
6 to 11 years	79.7%	2.6 hours
12 to 17 years	95.1%	4.5 hours
18 to 24 years	97.0%	5.7 hours
25 to 34 years	95.1%	5.6 hours
35 to 44 years	92.3%	4.7 hours
45 to 54 years	83.8%	3.9 hours
55 to 64 years	71.0%	3.2 hours
65 years or older	42.1%	3.0 hours

Source: Own elaboration based on ENDUTIH data.

It should be noted that notable differences persist in Internet access between urban and rural areas. According to ENDUTIH data, accessibility in urban areas is 86.9%, while in rural areas it reaches only 68.5%. This reveals a digital urban-rural gap of nearly 18 percentage points. Despite advances achieved, structural barriers continue to exist that affect children's and adolescents' access to digital resources, directly impacting their educational and development opportunities.

Now, Mexico has been among the leading countries where content removals on digital platforms have occurred, as demonstrated by a study published in 2020 titled #LibertadNoDisponible, and it establishes that content moderation on digital platforms affects freedom of expression and access to information. The main problems identified are:

• Automated Moderation: Lack of context interpretation, which can result in undue censorship. • Business Models and Platform Architecture: Designed for profitability, can generate exclusion and disinformation. • Digital Divide: Limitations in infrastructure and connectivity affect equitable access to information.

7.4 Digital Platforms Available in the Country

In Mexico, international digital platforms are not required to maintain a legal or physical corporate address in the country to operate and offer their services. However, as of the tax reforms that came into effect in 2020, the Tax Administration Service (SAT) requires foreign-resident companies without permanent establishments that provide digital services to users in Mexico to register in the Federal Taxpayer Registry (RFC). This measure aims to collect and withhold Value Added Tax (VAT) and, in the cases of intermediation (hosting, transport, goods delivery), withholding of Income Tax (ISR) from creators and partners.

According to the List of Digital Service Providers Registered in the RFC published and updated biannually by SAT, as of early 2026, there are dozens of global platforms (such as Meta, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, among others) formally registered to comply with these tax obligations (SAT, 2026).

The weight of these platforms in the national market is extremely robust due to high Internet penetration in the country. According to the Digital 2024 report prepared by Kepios in conjunction with We Are Social, Mexico has over 107 million Internet users, of whom more than 90 million have active profiles on social networks. The estimated distribution of users (based on advertising reach reported by the platforms' own tools) is distributed as follows:

Table 7. Distribution of Users According to Digital Platform in Mexico

Platform	Number of Millions of Users
Facebook	90.20
TikTok	74.15
Instagram	44.85

Source: Own elaboration based on the "Digital 2024: Mexico" report by We Are Social and Kepios. (Note: The TikTok figure includes only reach among users 18 years and older).

In political-electoral matters, the National Electoral Institute (INE) regularly maintains agreements and understandings with major technology companies (including Meta, TikTok, Google, and X), with special emphasis during particularly sensitive cycles such as the 2024 federal elections. As in the Costa Rican experience, the signing of these opens direct channels of institutional cooperation, although these depend on whether such agreements remain in place.

These efforts focus on protecting electoral integrity, combating disinformation (through alliances with fact-checkers and tools such as the official WhatsApp chatbot), and enabling fast-track reporting mechanisms for illegal content.

In the audit sphere, political parties have the legal obligation to report their digital campaign spending to the INE; however, consolidating comprehensive tracking of all economic resources directly invested in platforms continues to present a technical and normative challenge for the body.

7.5 Legislative and Regulatory Context in Mexico

7.5.1 Constitutional Framework

The Mexican constitutional framework bases the protection of digital environment rights primarily on Articles 6 and 7 of its Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression, the freedom to disseminate opinions on any matter, and the express prohibition of prior censorship. These guarantees extend fully to the use of Internet, social networks, and other information and communication platforms (ICT), establishing that the expression of ideas will not be subject to judicial or administrative inquiry, with the only limitations referring to attacks on morality, violation of third-party rights, incitement to crime, or disturbance of public order.

In keeping with this protective spirit, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has shielded digital privacy by determining that personal communications are protected against state interventions lacking prior judicial order, except in very strict exceptions linked to national security.

The right to freedom of expression is configured as a faculty that allows people to seek, receive, and disseminate information and ideas of any nature, constituting one of the essential pillars in the functioning of democratic societies. This dimension acquires particular relevance in electoral scenarios, where free access to information about candidates, proposals, and party profiles is indispensable for citizens to form their opinions and make informed decisions.

Despite these solid foundations, the legal system faces profound tensions in attempting to adapt its regulations to contemporary digital ecosystem challenges. On one hand, recent proposals to reform the Telecommunications Law have generated international alerts due to the possible inclusion of controls that would empower the government to block digital platforms without needing a judicial order. On the other hand, there is public and legislative debate about the need to establish regulations facing phenomena such as cyberbullying, digital gender-based violence, disinformation, and hate speech. All of this frames Mexico's current challenge: finding a normative and operational balance that preserves in an unrestricted manner citizens' right to seek, receive, and disseminate information, without neglecting social responsibility and risk mitigation on platforms.

The analysis of Mexican legal provisions reveals a significant effort to adapt traditional legal framework to the current reality of platforms and the digital environment. A clear trend is observed toward the creation of specific obligations directed at Online Service Providers (PSL) and other digital agents, with the objective of regulating their actions in matters of personal data protection.

7.5.2 Legislation on Telecommunications and Media

The Law on Telecommunications and Broadcasting (LMTR) constitutes the normative framework that regulates the use and exploitation of the radio spectrum, telecommunications networks, and the provision of broadcasting services in Mexico. In the current digital context, the relevance of the LMTR is fundamental, as it determines the basic rules for connectivity and network access, essential pillars for the functioning of any digital platform in the country.

One of the central elements of the LMTR is the principle of Net Neutrality. This principle imposes on telecommunications concessionaires, that is, Internet service providers, the obligation to operate their networks impartially. In practical terms, this means they cannot discriminate, block, or interfere with access to content, applications, services, or protocols unjustifiably. Net neutrality ensures that all users have free and equal access to digital services, preventing providers from favoring or harming certain competitors in the digital environment.

In turn, the LMTR dedicates specific sections to protecting user rights. Among the most relevant safeguards are service quality, clarity in tariffs, telephone number portability, and communications privacy. These protections ensure that consumers can enjoy efficient and safe services, and can change providers without losing their number and with certainty that their personal data will be protected.

Furthermore, the LMTR imposes on concessionaires collaboration obligations with competent authorities, such as the General Prosecutor's Office (FGR) and the Federal Judicial Power (PJF). Two of the most relevant mechanisms in this regard are real-time geolocation and data retention. Concessionaires must provide geolocation data of mobile communication equipment under specific judicial mandate, facilitating crime investigations. Additionally, they are obligated to preserve traffic and connection data, known as metadata, which can be requested by authorities for justice administration.

The authority responsible for enforcing the LMTR is the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (CRT), which has replaced the former model of the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT). The CRT is a deconcentrated body attached to the Agency for Digital Transformation and Telecommunications (ATDT), under the dependency of the Federal Executive. This institutional reconfiguration implies that the CRT assumes key functions such as regulation, promotion, and supervision of the radio spectrum, defense of user rights, and application of asymmetrical measures to encourage competition among preponderant economic agents.

Under the supervision of the CRT, the principle of net neutrality remains an essential guarantee for Mexico's digital ecosystem. Internet service providers are prohibited from blocking, interfering with, discriminating against, or degrading Internet traffic based on content, application, origin, or destination of the data. This legal provision ensures that digital platforms and services, regardless of size, have equitable access conditions to the network for all users.

The LMTR also preserves the obligations of concessionaires to collaborate with security and justice authorities, facilitating access to traffic data, metadata conservation, and real-time geolocation exclusively under judicial mandate. In sum, the regulatory essence of the LMTR regarding infrastructure and access remains in force, although now supervision and enforcement are concentrated in the CRT, operating under a renewed model of governance.

7.5.3 Specific Regulation on Platforms and/or Content Regulation

The Federal Law on Economic Competition (LFCE) has as its principal objective to regulate the activity of relevant economic agents within the digital ecosystem. This includes, especially, surveillance over access to essential inputs, with the purpose of guaranteeing free competition in markets that are increasingly dominated by digital platforms.

The LFCE grants powers to both the Agency for Digital Transformation and Innovation and the Market Regulation Authority (ARM) to investigate and determine whether an economic agent holds substantial power in a relevant market. Such evaluation is based on specific criteria, such as the existence of barriers to entry, the agent's capacity to set prices without facing significant countervailing pressure from competitors or consumers, as well as access to privileged information, including big data management.

A central aspect within the digital environment is the essential input. In the context of platforms, this concept can encompass different elements indispensable for effective competition, such as fundamental network infrastructure, unique data and algorithms necessary to compete, or access to the user base of a dominant platform.

In cases where an economic agent with substantial power exercises control over an essential input, the LFCE provides for the possibility of imposing specific measures aimed at guaranteeing that access to such input is conducted in a non-discriminatory manner for competitors. This mechanism is key to preventing platforms with a dominant role from suffocating competition through exclusive control of fundamental resources.

The law also prohibits so-called relative monopolistic practices. Although these conducts are not illegal in themselves, they are when carried out by agents with substantial power and have the effect of displacing competitors. Some examples of these practices, especially relevant in the digital sector, are:

Tied Sales: conditioning the purchase of one product or service to the acquisition of another. Refusal to Deal: unjustifiably preventing access to a network or essential input. Cross-subsidies: using income obtained in a market where one has dominance to finance predatory practices in another market.

In summary, the LFCE constitutes the legal tool designed to regulate the market power of large platforms, ensuring conditions of effective competition and preventing such dominance from harming innovation and consumer interests.

The boom in e-commerce and the proliferation of online content have significantly transformed the scope of consumer protection and copyright rights. Faced with this new scenario, the Federal Law for Consumer Protection (LFPC) has adapted its provisions to ensure that providers comply with specific requirements related to e-commerce, operation verification, and adhesion contracts. The nucleus of this protection resides in guaranteeing the transparency of information provided to consumers.

The LFPC, in its Articles 76 Bis and 76 Bis 1, has been updated to offer concrete defenses to consumers who conduct transactions or contract services through digital platforms. This approach is fundamental to ensure user rights remain intact in the digital environment.

These defenses are: Clear and Truthful Information: Providers are obligated to provide complete and accessible information about goods, products, or services before purchase, including total price, shipping costs, taxes, and warranty conditions. Claims and Verification Mechanisms: There must be the possibility for the consumer to file claims or clarifications through effective mechanisms, as well as to perform identity and transaction verification to prevent fraud.

Adhesion Contracts: the law regulates the use of online adhesion contracts, requiring them to be understandable and free of abusive clauses. Furthermore, providers must register these contracts and, in certain cases, obtain approval from the corresponding authority.

The LFPC, together with the Federal Law for Personal Data Protection Held by Private Parties (LFPDPPP), obliges providers to guarantee the security and confidentiality of consumers' personal and banking data. This implies the use of appropriate security protocols for card transactions, as well as the prohibition of using personal information for purposes other than those established in the privacy notice.

The Federal Consumer Procuracy (PROFECO) acts as the authority responsible for enforcing and overseeing the LFPC, including the digital sphere. PROFECO can implement distance conciliation procedures to resolve disputes between consumers and providers and has the power to impose sanctions on providers who fail to meet e-commerce requirements, such as lack of transparency or failure to honor warranties.

The LFPC seeks to equate consumer rights in both the physical and digital worlds. This translates to an environment in which transparency, security, and the possibility of filing complaints prevail, thus protecting platform users.

The Federal Copyright Law (LFDA) directly addresses copyright infringement in the digital environment, establishing clear mechanisms to combat piracy and protect creators' rights. One of the central points is the obligation of notice and takedown, internationally known as "notice and take down." Under this scheme, platforms acquire a fundamental responsibility: they must act diligently and promptly to remove or disable access to material flagged as infringing, once they have received formal notice from the copyright holder or their representative, such as INDAUTOR.

The reform to the LFDA incorporates a key distinction regarding the responsibility of Online Service Providers (PSL), who function as intermediaries by hosting or transmitting content. According to the legislation, PSL will not be responsible for infringements committed by its users, as long as they comply with the duty to act quickly on notices of infringing content. This mechanism limits their general responsibility and establishes their role as agents who contribute to the enforcement of copyright, without turning them into censors or subjects to unlimited liability.

The system is articulated through two principal instruments. First, the notice and takedown procedure, through which the copyright holder informs the PSL about the infringement, and the latter must remove or block access to the mentioned material. Second, the counter-notice mechanism, which gives the affected user the possibility to respond and argue that their content does not infringe copyright or that the removal was erroneous. The PSL, in this case, must inform the copyright holder about the received counter-notice.

This balance seeks to efficiently protect copyright, but also safeguards user rights, allowing in certain cases the legitimate use of material, for example, under exceptions or limitations recognized by law. The procedure is, in essence, extrajudicial; however, it allows for the intervention of authorities such as INDAUTOR or courts in case of dispute.

The National Copyright Institute (INDAUTOR) is established as the administrative authority responsible for mediating and resolving disputes arising from these notice, takedown, and counter-notice procedures. In this way, a specialized and efficient avenue is provided for resolving copyright-related conflicts in the digital environment, before resorting to judicial instances.

The introduction of Chapter IX Bis in the Federal Labor Law (LFT), which includes relevant articles such as 291-O and 291-P, constitutes one of the most transcendent actions by the Mexican State in the field of the digital economy. This reform has as its fundamental purpose the formalization of the labor relationship between digital platforms and the working people who provide services on them, leaving behind the discussion about their status as independent contractors.

The findings derived from the investigation highlight that the spirit of the law is to guarantee clear channels of transparency and protection for this labor sector, particularly facing the mechanisms of algorithmic control that are an essential part of digital platform operations. The regulation pays special attention to algorithmic governance by requiring that platforms digitize and make transparent their rating standards and implement mechanisms for challenging arbitrary deactivations.

This means that any automated decision that affects worker permanence or income must be properly justified and subject to review. In this way, working people are protected from a labor environment where decision-making is mediated by algorithms, allowing for control and defense against potential arbitrariness.

The reform also contemplates the recognition of concrete labor rights, such as the right to participate in Profit Sharing (PTU) as long as a minimum annual working day is met, the obligation that payment for services be made weekly, and the application of existing regulations regarding workplace safety and health.

In summary, the LFT adopts a hybrid regulatory model: on one hand, it recognizes the flexibility inherent in platform work; on the other, it establishes obligations of a classical type that ensure a minimum floor of social and legal protection. All of this under the supervision of the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS) and labor courts, who ensure the fulfillment and defense of these rights.

The inclusion of specific provisions in the Federal Criminal Code (CPF) to address crimes committed through electronic means represents a crucial advance in facing cybercrime challenges in Mexico. Articles 11 Bis, 424 Bis, and 461 Bis constitute the essential criminal basis for prosecuting illicit acts in the digital environment, thus marking the transition from traditional crime to more sophisticated and technological forms. This legal recognition implies that technology can not only be used as a means to commit crimes, but sometimes becomes the object of the crime itself. Consequently, the CPF has been updated to define and punish specific conduct within cyberspace.

The Federal Criminal Code establishes penalties for those who unlawfully access, interfere with, or destroy computer and IT equipment, encompassing practices such as hacking, cracking, and malware distribution. The purpose of these provisions is to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of both data and computer systems, protecting the interests of individuals, companies, and the State against digital threats.

Additionally, within the Federal Criminal Code, unauthorized dissemination of intimate images, cyberbullying, and child pornography are punished. These conducts are prosecuted with strict coordination between the CPF, the General Law on Access by Women to a Life Free of Violence (LGAMVLV), and other laws oriented toward the protection of minors and vulnerable groups.

Article 11 Bis of the CPF grants particular relevance to the criminal responsibility of legal entities, that is, companies and digital platforms. If a digital crime is committed in the name of or on behalf of a legal entity, and this results from lack of supervision or deficiencies in internal control, the company can be sanctioned independently of the responsibility of the individuals involved. Sanctions vary from fines and business closure to the definitive dissolution of the company, thus establishing a legal framework that incentivizes the adoption of control and prevention measures within organizations.

The prosecution and punishment of digital crimes corresponds primarily to the Federal Judicial Power (PJF) and the General Prosecutor's Office (FGR). These bodies have the power to request judicial orders for digital searches, seizure of equipment, and access to geolocation data or metadata conservation, in coordination with the LMTR. These evidentiary elements are essential in trials for crimes committed through electronic means, strengthening the State's investigative and procedural capacity.

In sum, the CPF fulfills the essential function of establishing the punitive framework for unlawful conduct committed in cyberspace, both for individuals and companies, complementing existing administrative and civil laws. This comprehensive approach reinforces the protection of user rights and legal certainty in Mexico's digital environment.

7.5.4 Legislation on Personal Data Protection and Privacy

The Federal Law for Personal Data Protection Held by Private Parties (LFPDPPP) constitutes the normative basis for the responsible management of information by obligated subjects, which include companies and digital platforms. This law focuses on ARCO rights, privacy notice, and data transfer regulation, promoting transparency and accountability.

The LFPDPPP establishes a series of guiding principles that direct the treatment of personal data:

Principle	Description
Lawfulness	Treatment must be conducted in accordance with the law.
Consent	It is necessary to obtain the consent of the data subject.
Information	The subject must be informed about the use of their data.
Quality	Data must be accurate, complete, and up to date.
Purpose	Data must be used only for the specified purposes.
Loyalty	Treatment must be conducted honestly and transparently.
Proportionality	Only necessary data should be treated to meet the purpose.
Responsibility	The responsible party must ensure compliance with regulations and data protection.

The privacy notice is the essential legal instrument that materializes the principle of information. It details to the subject how their data will be used and the mechanisms available to exercise their rights.

For their part, ARCO Rights (Access, Rectification, Cancellation, and Objection) allow subjects to exercise control over their personal information. Digital platforms are obligated to facilitate the exercise of these rights, detailed as follows:

ARCO Right	Description
Access	Right to know what data is held and how it is used.
Rectification	Right to request correction of incomplete or inaccurate data.
Cancellation	Right to request deletion of data when the treatment purpose has concluded.
Objection	Right to oppose the treatment of data for specific purposes.

One of the key aspects for digital platforms, especially those operating globally or subcontracting services, is the regulation of data transfers. The LFPDPPP requires that, to transfer data to third parties—whether at the national or international level—the subject's consent is obtained, except in cases of exception contemplated by law. Furthermore, the data recipient must assume the same protection obligations, guaranteeing that the protection level does not diminish, regardless of the entity or country processing the data.

The powers of surveillance, supervision, and sanctioning in personal data protection matters have been transferred to the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance. Within this Secretariat operates the new Federal Guarantor Authority, also known in some references as Transparency for the People, responsible for ensuring compliance with regulations and sanctioning infractions related to personal data treatment.

The new law, published on March 20, 2025, repeals the 2010 law and consolidates several changes that directly impact companies and digital platforms:

Key Aspect	Reformed Provision / New Obligation
Data Definition	The definition of "Personal Data" is slightly expanded, and the limitation of applying only to natural persons is eliminated, covering a person who is identifiable when their identity can be determined indirectly.
Consent	It is clarified that consent must be free, specific, and informed. However, the law establishes that, as a general rule, tacit consent will be valid, which simplifies some compliance processes.
Transfers	It more rigorously requires obtaining consent again when intending to treat data for purposes different from those provided in the original privacy notice. This limits the possibility of using data for compatible or analogous purposes.
Confidentiality	The confidentiality obligation is clearer and more exhaustive. It obligates the Responsible Party (the platform) and third parties to implement specific controls or mechanisms to ensure data confidentiality by all persons involved in the treatment.
Cookie Regulation	Although not yet completely in force, it includes the prohibition of the use of deceptive or manipulative designs (dark patterns) to obtain acceptance of identification and tracking files on the web (cookies and digital profiling techniques), with a specific sanctioning regime.
Challenge Means	The resolutions of the new Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance can now be challenged directly through constitutional appeals before specialized courts and tribunals.

7.5.5 Specific Regulation for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups

The General Law on Access by Women to a Life Free of Violence (LGAMVLV) has undergone significant evolution to recognize and confront digital and media violence. This transformation responds to the need to protect women against new forms of aggression arising in the virtual environment, and establishes concrete legal mechanisms to face these threats.

The LGAMVLV establishes clear definitions of digital violence and media violence, expressly recognizing that acts such as harassment, defamation, and non-consensual dissemination of intimate content increasingly occur in cyberspace. In this sense, the law empowers various authorities, including the Prosecutor's Office (SEGOB) and local authorities, to intervene promptly.

Among the most relevant mechanisms is the possibility of issuing orders to remove content and the implementation of protective measures, which grants legal capacity to demand that digital platforms or service providers remove, block, or take down digital material that constitutes a form of violence, such as in cases of revenge pornography or dissemination of intimate images without consent.

The regulation also emphasizes the importance of safe access to information and communication technologies (ICT) and proper safeguarding of databases as part of protection strategies. It actively involves bodies such as the National System for Comprehensive Protection of Girls, Boys, and Adolescents (SIPINNA), the INM-COMAR, and prosecutor's offices, evidencing an integral approach aimed at protecting especially vulnerable groups, such as girls, boys, adolescents, and migrant women, who are at greater risk of online exploitation and violence.

This law configures a robust institutional framework to guarantee women's safety in digital and media spheres. This framework ensures the existence of an effective and prompt legal response to stop acts of aggression perpetrated through electronic means, consolidating effective protection against gender-based violence in the digital environment.

Additionally, within the Federal Criminal Code, the unauthorized dissemination of intimate images, cyberbullying, and child pornography are punished. These conducts are prosecuted with strict coordination between the CPF, the LGAMVLV, and other laws oriented toward the protection of minors and vulnerable groups.

The reforms known as the "Olympia Law" have primarily modified the LGAMVLV, but the Federal Criminal Code also integrates and complements these conducts, especially those related to the dissemination of intimate sexual content without consent. Additionally, there are recent initiatives aimed at reforming articles such as 199 Octies, with the objective of including the manipulation of images through Artificial Intelligence (AI) as part of violations to sexual intimacy.

7.5.6 Digital Electoral Regulation

Mexico's electoral normative framework is grounded in a constitutional design that entrusts the administration and monitoring of elections to two autonomous bodies: the National Electoral Institute (INE) and the Electoral Court of the Federal Judicial Power (TEPJF). The integrity of the electoral process is shielded by the Constitution and a set of general laws that guarantee citizens' political rights, including equitable participation of indigenous communities and women. A recent reflection of the defense of institutional certainty and integrity was the 2023 resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which invalidated a series of proposed reforms for violations of legislative procedure, thus ensuring the stability of democratic rules prior to elections and the independence of authorities responsible for arbitrating the process.

In close relation with the standards of the Inter-American Human Rights System, Mexican regulations recognize that freedom of expression and access to information (enshrined in Article 6 of the Constitution under the principle of maximum publicity) are fundamental pillars during electoral cycles. Free political debate without censorship is conceived as an essential tool for the formation of informed public opinion and citizen oversight. This approach requires that any restriction on communicative rights be exceptional, reasonable, and strictly comply with the criteria of legality, necessity, and proportionality, safeguarding pluralism against any attempt to suppress dissenting voices.

Facing growing digital threats, the electoral system has developed legal mechanisms to combat disinformation and online toxicity that can alter the popular will. Article 41 of the Constitution expressly prohibits slander in political propaganda. At the local level, legislations such as the Electoral Code of Mexico City go a step further by expressly sanctioning "negative campaigns" on social networks and internet platforms. These regulations encompass the dissemination of false information that undermines dignity, hate discourse, and gender-based political violence. To mitigate these risks agilely, the INE and TEPJF have powers to implement special sanctioning procedures and dictate precautionary measures, such as suspension or immediate removal of content, seeking to protect the fairness of the contest.

At the level of technological integrity and data security, the National Cybersecurity Strategy serves as an umbrella. With the implementation of modalities such as electronic Internet voting (SIVEI) for residents abroad, the State has deployed rigorous physical, administrative, and technical controls. The measures implemented include biometric authentication of the voter, cryptographic separation of identity and suffrage to ensure ballot secrecy, and the application of international security standards (ISO/IEC 27002:2013). All of this prevents cyberattacks, algorithmic alterations, and safeguards citizen privacy.

7.6 Alignment with UNESCO Guidelines: Mexico

The analysis of Mexico's alignment with UNESCO Guidelines reveals conceptual agreement in the protection of human rights, with special emphasis on the safeguarding of personal data and the criminalization of new forms of violence facilitated by technology, as reflected in the General Law on Access by Women to a Life Free of Violence (LGAMVLV).

The normative basis is robust and of broad scope, solidly grounded in constitutional principles and international treaties that explicitly protect freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information in the digital environment. The legal framework encompasses a broad regulatory spectrum that involves social network platforms, e-commerce, and infrastructure providers. There is specialized regulations such as the Federal Law on Economic Competition (LFCE), the Federal Law for Personal Data Protection Held by Private Parties (LFPDPPP), and the recent reforms to the Federal Labor Law (LFT).

The aforementioned LGAMVLV criminalizes new forms of violence toward women facilitated by technology and is undoubtedly an advance in their protection and serves as a model for the protection of other vulnerable groups. However, the effectiveness of these formal guarantees directly clashes with the operational reality of the country, where the full exercise of digital rights is severely hindered by challenges such as systematic violence against journalists and the documented use of state espionage tools.

Mexican law already contemplates the "high threshold" for restrictions on freedom of expression, exemplified by the three-part test of legality, necessity, and proportionality, detailed in both theses and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN). For its part, copyright legislation provides a regime of conditional responsibility for intermediaries similar to "safe harbor" provisions, exempting platforms from liability a priori for third-party content, as long as they respond diligently to infringement notices.

However, aspects such as the transparency and accountability of authorities in their requests to restrict content on digital platforms, as established by UNESCO, still require explicit and robust articulation within Mexico's normative framework. This vulnerability is deepened due to the lack of a transversal legal mandate obligating platforms to be transparent regarding their moderation decisions or to submit to audits on the impact of their algorithms on people's rights. While there are sectoral defense mechanisms, such as in the aforementioned copyright case, or the right to challenge for platform workers and ARCO rights in the case of data protection, clearer and more effective avenues are lacking to appeal arbitrary moderation decisions based on private terms of use in other contexts.

The most profound divergence from the standards promoted by UNESCO lies in Mexico's institutional design and regulatory governance. Although the legal framework prohibits prior censorship and enshrines the principle of Net Neutrality, the structural reforms approved between 2024 and 2025 have reduced—or even eliminated—the constitutional autonomy of key regulators in telecommunications, economic competition, and transparency (such as the IFT, COFECE, or INAI), whose functions were absorbed by Executive Branch dependencies. This concentration of powers directly contravenes UNESCO Guidelines' recommendation for strictly independent regulators free from political and economic control, weakening institutional barriers against arbitrary government intervention or disproportionate surveillance.

In the electoral sphere, there is important convergence in the protective basis of human rights and freedom of expression that Mexican law exhibits with respect to UNESCO Guidelines. Mexico's electoral legislation and resolutions of its highest courts demand a high guarantor threshold for limiting public discourse, with it being sine qua non to apply the three-part test of necessity and proportionality established in international law and promoted by UNESCO. Furthermore, the legal criminalization of digital gender-based violence and hate discourse in electoral contexts reflects alignment with the urgency of protecting vulnerable groups and mitigating risks to electoral integrity in the digital ecosystem. For this, electoral authorities enjoy the independence required by international standards.

And although the Mexican State acts to curb abuses through precautionary measures and legal resolutions, the response to technology platforms continues to operate primarily under collaboration agreements with platforms and ad-hoc reactions. It would be advisable to work toward a comprehensive legal framework that allows for the incorporation of due diligence obligations, algorithmic transparency, and accountability that requires platforms to proactively evaluate and mitigate how their moderation and recommendation systems amplify electoral disinformation, ensuring that this does not result in government controls that endanger free democratic debate.

Finally, the state's approach to systemic disinformation remains fragmented and insufficient, although authorities such as the INE have implemented provisional measures during electoral processes. There is still a need to develop a comprehensive normative strategy that regulates these phenomena without jeopardizing freedom of expression. In parallel, efforts to digitally empower citizens would be strengthened by more robust national policies of media and informational literacy.