Saint Lucia

Saint Lucia's Data Protection Act (Act 11 of 2011, as amended by Act 2 of 2015) sets the country's general personal-data rules, but only part of it has been brought into force: a commencement order activated the Preliminary Part, the data-controller obligations in sections 32 to 43 of Part 3, the Part 6 exemptions, and the Data Protection Principles in Schedule 2, from 31 January 2023.

The Part establishing and empowering the Data Protection Commissioner, the registration scheme, the data-subject access and correction rights, the cross-border transfer restriction in section 45, and the Act's general offence and penalty provision are not shown as commenced in the sources reviewed, so a data controller's currently enforceable duties are the consent, collection-notice, sensitive-data, accuracy, use-limitation, security, and destruction requirements of sections 32 to 43, backed by the specific fine section 34 states for a consent breach.

The Act's definition of personal data expressly includes an individual's fingerprints and DNA, though it does not list biometric data among the narrower sensitive personal data categories that carry heightened processing criteria.

Saint Lucia has no scraping-specific statute, so general law governs each dimension separately.

The Computer Misuse Act (Act 12 of 2011) criminalises unauthorised access to, interception of, and modification of computer data, but each offence turns on the access, interception, or modification being unauthorised or effected without authority, so a scraper reading a public, unauthenticated page without defeating any access control falls outside a plain reading of these provisions, and no reported Saint Lucian case has tested the point.

No Saint Lucian court has ruled on the enforceability of a browsewrap or clickwrap terms-of-service against a scraper, and no statute addresses the question.

The Copyright Act (Act 10 of 1995, as amended by Act 7 of 2000) permits fair dealing for research or private study and for criticism, review, or reporting current events, but Saint Lucia has not enacted a text-and-data-mining exception, so training a model on scraped copyrighted text rests only on the general fair-dealing grounds if the use can be characterised as research or private study, and the Act confers no sui generis database right.

The Data Protection Act (Act 11 of 2011, as amended) applies to personal data with no general carve-out for information that is already publicly accessible, so scraping personal data from a public Saint Lucian website engages the Act's consent, purpose-limitation and security duties to the extent those provisions have been brought into force.

No Saint Lucian statute or reported case establishes a scraping-specific unfair-competition, misappropriation, or trespass doctrine, and none assigns legal weight to a robots.txt directive or imposes an AI-training-specific rule.

Saint Lucia has no press-publisher neighbouring right, no mandatory platform-to-publisher bargaining regime, and no text-and-data-mining opt-out framework; no Saint Lucian statute or reported case addresses hot-news misappropriation or the liability of hyperlinking or framing third-party journalism.

The Copyright Act (Act 10 of 1995, as amended by Act 7 of 2000) is the only instrument bearing on how an aggregator may reproduce a headline or snippet of another's reporting: fair dealing for the purpose of criticism, review, or reporting current events does not infringe copyright provided the use is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and a court weighing fair dealing must consider the nature of the work, the extent and substantiality of the part used relative to the whole, and the effect on the work's potential market or commercial value.