Argentina

Ley 25.326 requires free, express, and informed consent before processing personal data, with exceptions for data from unrestricted public-access sources, data gathered for a State function or legal obligation, and a few other narrow grounds.

Article 7 forbids collecting sensitive data (racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious, philosophical, or moral beliefs, union membership, or health or sexual-life information) except for reasons of general public interest authorized by law or for statistical or scientific purposes that cannot identify the data subject.

Article 12 prohibits transferring personal data to a country or international organization that does not provide an adequate level of protection, subject to enumerated exceptions such as international judicial cooperation and treaty-based transfers. Article 20 bars basing a court decision or administrative act that evaluates a person's conduct solely on the result of automated processing that profiles their character or personality.

Article 21 requires registering any file, record, or database intended to provide reports with the National Registry, and article 27 lets a business gather data for advertising or profiling purposes only from sources available to the public or furnished with the data subject's consent.

Article 31 backs the Act with administrative sanctions of warning, suspension, a fine of one thousand to one hundred thousand pesos, or closure of the file, and article 32 inserted articles 117 bis and 157 bis into the Código Penal. Article 157 bis, since substituted by Ley 27.759 in 2024, punishes unauthorized access to, disclosure from, or illegitimate insertion into a personal database with one month to two years' imprisonment.

That penalty rises to six months to four years for conduct reaching a genetic-data databank or DNA registry. Article 33 arms an affected person with a habeas data judicial action to learn what personal data is held and demand its correction, deletion, or confidentiality.

Article 153 bis punishes with fifteen days to six months' imprisonment, if the act is not a more severely punished offense, a person who knowingly accesses, by any means, without due authorization or exceeding the authorization held, a computer system or data of restricted access. The penalty rises to one month to one year's imprisonment when the access harms a system or data belonging to a state public body or a public-services or financial-services provider.

Because the offense's own text requires the system or data to be one 'de acceso restringido' (of restricted access), a plain reading does not reach reading a public, unauthenticated page that carries no access-control barrier such as a password, permission, or authentication requirement; no reported Argentine decision testing that reading against a web-scraping fact pattern was located.

Article 10 lets anyone publish, for didactic or scientific purposes, commentary, criticism, or notes on intellectual works, including up to one thousand words of a literary or scientific work, or eight musical measures, and only the indispensable portions of the text for that purpose; the same provision reaches teaching works, collections, anthologies, and similar compilations.

Article 1 protects, among literary and scientific works, source and object computer programs and data compilations, so Argentina protects a compilation as a copyright work rather than through a separate sui generis database right, subject to the same originality standard as any other work. Article 1 also states that copyright protection reaches the expression of ideas, procedures, operating methods, and mathematical concepts but not those ideas, procedures, methods, and concepts themselves.

Argentina has not enacted a text-and-data-mining exception, so training a model on scraped copyrighted text rests only on the general quotation exception if it can be characterized as didactic or scientific commentary within the one-thousand-word or eight-measure limits.

Ley 25.326 defines personal data as information of any kind referring to identified or identifiable individuals or corporations, without excluding information that is publicly accessible, so scraping personal data from a public Argentine website does not by itself remove the data from the Act's coverage.

Article 5.2.a excuses the consent requirement specifically where the data is obtained from an unrestricted public-access source, but that exception is textually confined to consent, leaving the Act's other duties, registration of the resulting file or database, data quality, security, and the cross-border transfer restriction in article 12, applicable to a scraper that becomes the person in charge of, or user of, a database intended to provide reports.

Article 28 makes unsigned articles, anonymous contributions, reports, drawings, engravings, or other original material acquired by a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical, or by a news agency, with exclusivity, the property of that outlet or agency; general-interest news, by contrast, may be used, transmitted, or retransmitted, though its source must be stated whenever it is published in its original form.

Article 27 bars publishing a political or literary speech, or a lecture on an intellectual subject, without the author's express authorization, and separately bars publishing a parliamentary speech for profit without the author's authorization, except for press reporting on it.

Article 10 lets anyone publish, for didactic or scientific purposes, commentary, criticism, or notes on intellectual works, including up to one thousand words of a literary or scientific work or eight musical measures, limited to the portions indispensable for that purpose; it carries no headline-length cap distinct from that word count and is not confined to the press industry.

No reported Argentine decision applies article 28's exclusivity rule, or article 10's quotation exception, to a systematic news aggregator as opposed to a competing news outlet or an individual quoting a published work. Argentina has no separate press-publisher neighbouring right, no compelled platform-to-publisher bargaining regime, and no located case law on hyperlinking or framed display.