<\/p>\n
It is the APPI\u2019s basic principle that the cautious handling of personal information (see question 2.1 for the definition), under the principle of respect for individuals, will promote the proper handling of personal information (APPI, Article 3). Guidelines that apply specifically to certain industries (e.g., financial, healthcare and telecommunication sectors) are jointly issued by the PPC and the competent government body that supervises the relevant industry. The guide provides 27 question and answer chapters, focusing on key privacy and data protection compliance issues under local laws in countries around the world. Data Protection Laws and Regulations 2025 covers common issues including relevant legislation and competent authorities, territorial scope, key principles, individual rights, registration formalities, appointment of a data protection officer and processors \u2013 in 27 jurisdictions. It aims to enhance the level of protection from online crimes committed through the use of information technology, networks and platforms.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Under Article 27, paragraph 5(i) of the APPI, if the handling operator entrusts all or part of the handling of the personal data it acquires to an individual or another entity, that individual or entity will not be considered a \u201cthird party\u201d under Article 27, paragraph 1. 8.7 Must the appointment of a Data Protection Officer be registered\/notified to the relevant data protection authority(ies)? Although a handling operator is expected to adopt the measures described in the PPC Guidelines, the failure to adopt such measures is not a direct breach of the APPI. Separately from the APPI, as discussed in question 1.3, large-scale telecommunications service providers designated by the MIC will be required to appoint an information protection officer and notify the MIC of the appointment. 7.8 How frequently must registrations\/notifications be renewed (if applicable)? 7.4 Who must register with\/notify the data protection authority (e.g., local legal entities, foreign legal entities subject to the relevant data protection legislation, representative or branch offices of foreign legal entities subject to the relevant data protection legislation)?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.2 What guidance (if any) has\/have the data protection authority(ies) issued in relation to the processing of personal data in connection with artificial intelligence? 18.2 What guidance has\/have the data protection authority(ies) issued on disclosure of personal data to foreign law enforcement or governmental bodies? It is understood that \u201cgovernmental bodies\u201d referenced in (d) above would be bodies of the Japanese government and not of other countries, and \u201claws\u201d referenced in (a) above would not include foreign laws. Under the APPI, the general rule is that the handling operator cannot provide personal data to any \u201cthird party\u201d without obtaining the prior consent of the principal, except in specified cases (Article 27, paragraph 1). 17.4 Does the data protection authority ever exercise its powers against businesses established in other jurisdictions? 17.3 Describe the data protection authority\u2019s approach to exercising those powers, with examples of recent cases.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Much-discussed California Consumer Privacy Act regulations for automated decision-making technology, risk assessments and cybersecurity audits became applicable at the start of the new year. Privacy teams are often responsible for operationalizing AI obligations because many requirements align with existing governance processes. Japan\u2019s AI Act takes a principles-based approach, relying on cooperation and existing laws rather than penalties, but still embeds expectations around transparency and responsible use. Most frameworks distinguish between AI systems based on risk, rather than technology.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n