News
Understanding data transfers and data transmissions under Mexican Data Protection Law
You may want to avoid getting lost in translation when preparing a data transfer to or from Mexico. We have different names to regulate what globally is known as C2C and C2P data transfers.

If you want to get along with Mexican data protection lawyers, you may want to learn this concept: “remisión de datos”. What is this? Well, this what most international privacy experts call a Controller (C) to Processor (P) data transfer. And what about C2C data transfers? Well, those are called data transfers (safe ground, here). This may sound like a “caprice”, but serious lawyers will handle this difference quite seriously (and it should be under Mexican law).
Let’s begin with the basics. Under Mexican law, a Data Controller (responsable) and a Data Processor (encargado) are understood in the same way as in many other data protection laws around the world. If we consider the US, we may add that regarding the processing of personal data, a Service Provider will be regulated as a Data Processor, and this is broadly understood already.
Mexican data protection laws specifically regulate data communications; essentially as follows:
Data communications | C2C = Data Transfers |
C2P = Data transmissions |
Under the new EU Standard contractual clauses (SCCs) this may sound “incomplete”, since to comply with the GDPR we now find four modules to regulate transfer scenarios to third countries: Controller to Controller (Module 1), Controller to Processor (Module 2), Processor to Processor (Module 3), and Processor to Controller (Module 4). We will get to this later.
The regulation of data transfers in Mexico is relatively simple, since they are carried out between controllers identified as "transferor" (exporter) and "receiver" (importer) which must process the data with the corresponding obligations of a controller. The main differentiating notes in Mexico would be:
(i) That the exporter must guarantee that the data subjects have been informed of the transfer (through the corresponding Privacy Notice) and, if necessary, must have obtained the data subjects’ consent for the transfer of their data.
(ii) The exporter must communicate to the importer the Privacy Notice that regulates the processing of the data to be transferred, so that the importer "respects" the purposes of the processing.
(iii) The importer is obliged to communicate to the data subjects its own Privacy Notice (a) at the first contact it has with them or, as the case may be (b) before using the data if it will use the data for a purpose other than the one "originally consented to".
It should be noted that data transfers must be "formalized" and that there are no restrictions on international destinations; that is, there is no regime of third countries or specific destinations to which data may not be transferred, unless the destination does not provide similar protection to that provided by Mexican law.
The regulation of data transmission (encargos) is also relatively simple: it is mandatory to "formalize" them and, as in the case of transfers, there are no restrictions on international destinations. Significant differences:
(i) Data transmission do not need to be consented to by the data subjects; these data communications to third party service providers are understood as necessary and as an ordinary part of the operation of a business, so no consent is required to carry them out.
(ii) Data transfers do not require to be informed to the data subjects; Mexican law expressly excludes the obligation of the controllers to inform about these communications in their Privacy Notices.
Under Mexican law, the obligations of a data processor are like those of other international regimes:
(i) It shall process personal data in accordance with the controller's instructions,
(ii) It shall refrain from processing personal data for purposes other than those instructed by the controller,
(iii) It shall implement adequate security measures to protect personal data process on behalf of the controller,
(iv) It shall delete the personal data being processed once the legal relationship with the controller has been fulfilled or if the controller instructs such deletion.
(v) It shall refrain from transferring data, unless the controller authorizes and instruct such transfer (to another controller, and even to another processor).
At this point, it is important to point out that there are still controllers and processors who do not adequately differentiate between a transfer and a transmission, unnecessarily complicating certain international "transfers". Why? Because if any party improperly classifies a (C2P) transmission as a (C2C) transfer, it may inappropriately subject its performance to the consent of the data subjects (which is not required) or to the "transfer" being informed in a Privacy Notice (which is not required). This may happen when you propose a data transfer that will be understood as a data transmission in Mexico and the proposing party does not clarify that it will be regulated as a C2P data communication: that is, as a “remisión de datos”.
These scenarios may get even more complicated when proposing to a Mexican counterpart to regulate Processor to Processor data transfers (SCCs’ Module 3) or Processor to Controller data transfers (SCCs’ Module 4). And let’s not forget, a European counterpart using SCC cannot change the wording of any given module.
Our approach to resolve these situations is to clearly define the role of the Mexican party and to communicate that we (a non-Mexican counterpart) understand the local difference between a data transfer and a data transmission. Proposing a specific addendum where this difference is noted may also help you to get your C2C, C2P, P2P or P2C data transfers approved faster in Mexico.
Article provided by INPLP member: Héctor Guzmán-Rodríguez (BGBG, Mexico)
Discover more about the INPLP and the INPLP-Members
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- Jänner 2025
- Dezember 2024
- November 2024
- Oktober 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- Juli 2024
- Juni 2024
- Mai 2024
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010