Data Protection & Privacy 2026

Last Updated March 10, 2026

Morocco

Law and Practice

Authors



DLA Piper Casablanca has three legal specialists and one counsel in its data protection and privacy team, all of whom are able to work in Arabic, English and French. The team regularly assists clients in the context of digital transformation projects, IT regulations queries, and cybersecurity issues. Regarding data privacy specifically, they advise and assist clients in compliance processes relating to data protection, cross-border data transfers, privacy impact assessments, and vendor management and third-party risk. Some of their relevant work includes drafting and reviewing privacy policies for CFC Authority, Four Seasons Hotels, AIG, FMC Corporation, HCL Technologies, Vivo Mobile Communications, Infobip and TikTok.

Law No 09-08 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and its implementing Decree No 2-09-165 govern personal data in Morocco. This law applies to personal data processing:

  • when it is carried out by a natural or legal person established in Moroccan territory; and
  • when the data controller is not established in Moroccan territory but uses automated or non-automated means to process personal data in Moroccan territory (except any processing which is used solely for purposes of transit in national territory, or in a country where the legislation is recognised as equivalent to that of Morocco with regard to the protection of personal data).

The regulatory authority in charge of personal data protection in Morocco, the National Commission for the Control of Personal Data Protection (Commission Nationale de Contrôle de Protection des Données à Caractère Personnel – CNDP), issues decisions that provide specifications regarding types of processing to simplify the notification requirements and standardise the processing of personal data. Data controllers and processors are required to comply with these decisions. Although Morocco does not yet have AI-specific regulations, the CNDP is currently preparing a decision on AI and personal data.

Data in Morocco is also regulated by Law No 05-20 relating to cybersecurity. This law contains provisions applicable to all data, including but not limited to personal data, processed by specific types of data controllers, such as public entities and critical infrastructures.

In addition to these laws, the EU GDPR and other foreign data protection regulations may apply to some entities in Morocco if the processing conducted by these entities falls within the scope of the regulation in question.

Moroccan data protection law is built around a set of core principles that shape all personal data processing. Controllers must ensure that data is collected for legitimate purposes, remains proportionate to those purposes, is kept accurate and up to date, and is not retained longer than necessary. Processing typically requires the individual’s free, specific and informed consent, except in rare cases allowed by law. Organisations are also required to put in place appropriate technical and organisational safeguards to protect personal data, with reinforced measures when dealing with sensitive personal data.

Individuals are granted a broad range of rights enabling them to understand and control how their personal data is used. These include the right to be informed at the time of collection, the right to access their data, the right to request rectification or deletion of inaccurate or unlawful data, and the right to object to the processing of their data.

To achieve compliance in practice, organisations should implement the following measures:

  • map all data-processing activities;
  • ensure that all processing activities are conducted within the limits permitted under Moroccan law and regulations;
  • ensure that the documentation (eg, information notices and data protection clauses) used in the context of each processing is compliant with the applicable regulations;
  • complete mandatory filings with the CNDP or obtain prior authorisations where required, including for sensitive data, changes of purpose or interconnections;
  • enter into written contracts with data processors that clearly define security, confidentiality and instruction-bound obligations; and
  • implement data retention rules consistent with the purpose of processing.

Moroccan law imposes enhanced safeguards when processing sensitive personal data, which includes data relating to a person’s ethnic or racial origin, political or religious beliefs, trade union membership, health status or genetic characteristics. This data may only be processed under strict conditions and typically requires explicit consent, and prior authorisation from the data protection authority, given its heightened potential to impact individual rights and freedoms.

In Morocco, there are no specific regulations governing the processing of personal data for research and development purposes. As a result, the general data protection rules apply. That said, where anonymisation is effective and the individual is no longer identifiable from the data, the dataset no longer constitutes personal data. In those circumstances, it falls outside the scope of data protection law and may be used without prior authorisation.

Additionally, at the request of the data controller and where a legitimate interest exists, the data protection authority may authorise the retention of personal data for historical, statistical or scientific purposes beyond the period necessary for achieving the initial purposes of collection.

Morocco does not yet have a dedicated regulatory framework governing artificial intelligence, automated decision-making or algorithmic systems. As a result, any use of personal data in AI models must comply with the general principles of lawfulness, purpose limitation, proportionality and accuracy that apply to all processing activities under Moroccan data protection law. The CNDP is currently preparing a decision that should bring more clarity to the future of AI and personal data in Morocco.

Moroccan data protection law requires controllers to implement technical and organisational measures that ensure the security of personal data and protect it against unauthorised access, alteration, disclosure, accidental loss or destruction. These obligations form the foundation of how organisations must prevent data breaches. When a data breach occurs, data controllers and data processors are not required to notify the data protection authority about it under the applicable regulations. That said, notifying the data protection authority about a data breach would be highly recommended.

The CNDP is the only personal data protection regulator in Morocco. The CNDP has jurisdiction over any and all data controllers and data processors that are subject to Law No 09-08 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

The CNDP has focused, for over a decade, on familiarising stakeholders with the applicable data protection regulations. Over the last few months, the CNDP has started to issue warnings to some major data controllers in Morocco, asking them to comply with the provisions of Law No 09-08. The CNDP has also initiated some investigations into potential violations of the applicable regulations, specifically by data controllers that process significant amounts of personal data.

Cybersecurity on the other hand falls under the scope of a different regulator, which is the Information Systems Security Department within the Ministry of Defence. This regulator is in charge of monitoring, providing guidance and receiving complaints relating to the information systems security of entities that are within the scope of Law No 05-20 on cybersecurity.

The CNDP has the authority to investigate incidents related to the protection of personal data, and to refer cases to the public prosecutor to initiate proceedings against any suspected offender. In addition to police officers, specially commissioned and duly sworn officers of the CNDP may search for and formally record violations in official reports.

Non-compliance with Law No 09-08 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is subject to a fine ranging from MAD10,000 to MAD600,000 and/or imprisonment of between three months and four years. The CNDP typically sends a warning to the data controller prior to any measure that may result in a fine or imprisonment.

In addition to these fines, legal persons may be punished with one of the following penalties:

  • the partial confiscation of their property; or
  • seizure of objects and items where the production, use, carrying, holding or selling of such is an offence; or
  • the closure of the establishment(s) of the legal person where the offence was committed.

The CNDP has addressed warning letters to some entities that process large amounts of personal data and/or sensitive personal data. Most of these warnings have been addressed to data controllers such as hotels, pharmaceutical companies, public universities, and other public entities.

Privacy-related litigation in Morocco remains limited, reflecting both the still-developing nature of data protection awareness and the fact that the national authority acts mainly as an educator at this stage.

Individuals may file complaints when their rights to access, rectify or object are denied, and the data protection authority has the power to order corrective measures or refer cases to the public prosecutor for potential criminal proceedings. As a result, many disputes are resolved at the administrative stage, with formal court proceedings arising only when the matter escalates into a criminal offence.

There is no major privacy-related case law in Morocco due to the limited number of litigation cases related to the subject.

Examples of recent court cases do however illustrate an emerging awareness. In one instance, individuals who had been filmed without their consent during the shooting of a movie were awarded damages in court. In another instance, an individual appeared in a company’s promotional magazine without having given prior consent and successfully obtained damages in court.

There are no privacy-specific collective redress mechanisms in Morocco.

Morocco does not have any non-personal data specific law. The main law that can apply to both personal and non‑personal data in Morocco is Law No 05‑20 on cybersecurity. It applies to the sensitive information systems owned by a public entity or a critical infrastructure.

Cybersecurity regulations define critical infrastructures as installations, structures and systems that are essential to the maintenance of the vital functions of society, health, safety, security and economic or social well-being, where damage, unavailability or destruction of this infrastructure could result in the failure of these vital functions. The same regulations define public entities as administrations, local authorities, state-owned enterprises and any other legal entity governed by public law.

Moroccan regulations do not specify how mixed datasets that include personal data and are also subject to the cybersecurity framework should interact. Consequently, the obligations apply cumulatively. Where personal data is involved, Law No 09‑08 governs the legal basis and confidentiality requirements for processing. In parallel, Law No 05‑20 imposes security and resilience measures on in‑scope entities’ information systems, irrespective of whether the data is personal or non‑personal.

This is not applicable in Morocco.

The General Directorate of Information Systems Security (La Direction Générale de la Sécurité des Systèmes d'Information – DGSSI) is Morocco’s national cybersecurity authority, operating under the administration of National Defence. It is responsible for implementing the framework established by Law No 05‑20 on cybersecurity, including defining and overseeing organisational and technical measures to strengthen the security and resilience of information systems used by public entities and critical infrastructures.

Cookies and similar tracking technologies are regulated only when they collect or contain personal data, such as an IP address or any identifier capable of linking the data to an identifiable individual. In such circumstances, the deployment of cookies constitutes processing of personal data and becomes subject to the obligations of Law No 09-08, including the requirement to file a notification or obtain prior authorisation from the CNDP, depending on the type and sensitivity of the data being processed. In this context, that data protection authority has issued Decision No D-939-2025 which provides for the possibility of filing a simplified form for specific processing involving cookies.

Direct marketing by means of automatic calling machines, fax machines, electronic mail or similar technologies is strictly regulated in Morocco. The law expressly prohibits the use of such communication channels when they rely on the contact details of a natural person who has not given their prior and explicit consent to receive promotional messages. Any unsolicited marketing communication using these technologies is therefore unlawful, regardless of the nature of the product or service being promoted.

Employers, in the same manner as any other data controller, are required to notify and/or obtain prior authorisation from the CNDP for each purpose for which they process the personal data of their employees.

The processing of employees’ personal data specifically for HR management purposes is subject to obtaining authorisation under Decision No 298-AU-2014 of the data protection authority. The decision provides a list of data that may be processed by employers for HR management purposes under a simplified authorisation request. If an employer processes any other data, for the same purpose or any other purpose, they are required to file a separate notification or authorisation request.

Employers are also required to obtain employees’ consent for the processing of their personal data and to inform them of the characteristics of the data processing, in accordance with the requirements set out in the applicable Moroccan regulations.

In Morocco, personal data processing in M&A transactions is subject to the general obligations of Law No 09-08, meaning that any review or transfer of personal data requires a lawful basis, transparency and adequate security measures. During due diligence, sellers may only disclose personal data that is necessary, proportionate and relevant to the transaction, and must ensure confidentiality through controlled access and contractual safeguards.

If a transaction results in a change of data controller, the new data controller is required to notify the data subjects and the CNDP of said change. Upon notification, the CNDP may require the new data controller to file new declarations and/or authorisation requests.

In theory, personal data transfers to countries specified by the data protection authority (see list below) can be completed freely, whereas transfers to any other countries are subject to obtaining authorisation from the same authority.

However, in practice, the CNDP requires prior authorisation to be obtained for data transfers to all countries, with the authorisation being more easily granted if the data is transferred to one of the countries specified in the CNDP’s list.

The transfer of personal data abroad requires an adequate level of protection for the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, particularly through standard contractual clauses governing the transfer.

The data protection authority’s list of countries is as follows: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Data controllers are required to obtain a separate transfer authorisation for each notified or authorised processing by the CNDP.

Data localisation requirements in Morocco are provided by the cybersecurity regulations and apply exclusively to sensitive information systems owned by a public entity or a critical infrastructure.

There are no blocking statutes in Morocco.

Morocco is continuously working towards joining the list of countries recognised by the EU as providing an adequate level of data protection, but it has not yet obtained a European Commission adequacy decision under the GDPR.

DLA Piper Casablanca

CFC Cube Tower
Casablanca Finance City
Casablanca
Morocco

+212 520 427 827

sara.essouar@dlapiper.com www.dlapiper.com
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Authors



DLA Piper Casablanca has three legal specialists and one counsel in its data protection and privacy team, all of whom are able to work in Arabic, English and French. The team regularly assists clients in the context of digital transformation projects, IT regulations queries, and cybersecurity issues. Regarding data privacy specifically, they advise and assist clients in compliance processes relating to data protection, cross-border data transfers, privacy impact assessments, and vendor management and third-party risk. Some of their relevant work includes drafting and reviewing privacy policies for CFC Authority, Four Seasons Hotels, AIG, FMC Corporation, HCL Technologies, Vivo Mobile Communications, Infobip and TikTok.

Introduction

Personal data protection in Morocco is governed primarily by Law No 09-08 relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. This law sets the main rules that apply when personal data is collected, stored, used, shared, or combined with other data. In everyday terms, it covers everything from keeping customer contact details, to running a website that remembers user preferences, to managing employee records, to handling medical files. The law is complemented by its implementing decree, Decree No 2-09-165 of 21 May 2009, which clarifies how the law is put into practice and how certain formalities work. Alongside these two texts, the National Commission for the Control of Personal Data Protection (Commission Nationale de Contrôle de Protection des Données à Caractère Personnel – CNDP) plays a central role. It is not only an institution that receives notifications and authorisation requests, it is also a body that issues decisions. These decisions translate broad legal principles into practical rules for specific, common situations and, in several cases, they set out simplified notification processes for a defined type of processing.

Why CNDP Decisions Matter

The practical decisions made by the CNDP matter because many of the questions raised by data protection are not abstract. People do not ask about definitions in a law book, they ask what a website may place on their phone, what a company may keep in a visitor log, whether a clinic may use a tool to follow up with patients, or how long a camera recording may be stored. The CNDP decisions answer these questions by giving a model that data controllers can follow, with clear boundaries. They typically specify the purpose that justifies the processing, the categories of people concerned, and the types of data that may be collected.

The five decisions issued in 2025

During 2025, the CNDP issued five decisions on different subjects, all dated 28 November 2025. Although the topics look diverse, they share a common purpose: to set practical compliance routes for common processing operations that affect a large number of people. The five decisions cover cookies stored on a user device, the management of newsletters, processing for patient follow-up, video surveillance inside healthcare establishments, and the collection of personal data in the context of access control to private professional premises. Read together, they show a regulator that is focused on situations that citizens encounter daily, and on the points where small design choices, such as what a form asks or for how long data is kept, can make a major difference for privacy.

Cookies

The decision on cookies addresses a reality of modern browsing: many websites store small files on a device to remember preferences, measure their audience, or support certain features. The CNDP model treats this as personal data processing when cookies relate to an identifiable person. It then limits the purposes for which the simplified declaration model can be used. Typical purposes that fit within the model include audience measurement and navigation statistics, personalisation of content or services based on previous choices, and the use of features that allow content to be shared on social networks. At the same time, the CNDP draws a firm line around profiling. If a data controller uses cookie data to build a personal profile of an internet user, such as to determine habits, preferences, or behaviour, the activity then requires prior authorisation. The distinction is easy to understand: counting visits and improving a service is one thing, building a profile of a specific person is another.

The cookie model also turns general principles into precise limits. It sets a maximum retention period of six months for data collected via cookies, after which the data should be deleted or made anonymous. It also deals with consent in a pragmatic way. The model indicates that consent is not required for every cookie purpose, but it is required for certain uses that are more intrusive or commercially sensitive, notably personalised advertising and social network sharing features. Consent must be expressed through a clear action and collected through simple and accessible means offered by the website. Just as important, refusal must be possible and must be respected.

Newsletters

A second decision issued in 2025 focuses on newsletters. Many data controllers send newsletters to customers, members, or the general public, and the processing behind this is often standard: collecting a name and contact details, creating mailing lists, and sending information. The CNDP model sets a simplified declaration route for this activity as long as the data controller stays within a defined parameter. Under the model, the data may be used to constitute and use address lists for external information or communication actions, and to produce statistics related to newsletter campaigns. It is a practical reminder that even common marketing or information activities are still data processing and must follow rules.

Here too, the CNDP highlights a difference that matters in terms of public trust – sending information is not the same as analysing people. The model states that using subscriber data to establish a personal profile requires prior authorisation. In other words, if a newsletter becomes a tool to categorise, predict or influence individuals based on their behaviour, it is treated as higher risk. The decision also sets straightforward obligations that match what people expect from fair communication. Consent should be obtained, whether through a signature on a paper form or a box that a person actively checks online. Subscribers must be able to unsubscribe at any time through a simple mechanism, such as a link in each message. Data should be kept until the person unsubscribes, which aligns retention with the relationship chosen by the individual rather than with the convenience of the sender.

Patient follow-up

The third decision of 2025 addresses patient follow-ups, a domain where data is essential and where the stakes are high. Health information can reveal intimate details, and misuse can have serious consequences. The CNDP model is designed as a simplified authorisation request for processing used to manage and follow patients. It sets a list of purposes closely linked to care: taking medical appointments, monitoring the state of health of patients, medical diagnosis and therapeutic treatment, producing and communicating analysis results to patients or their legal representatives, following the patient pathway within healthcare establishments, and using telemedicine technologies for care and follow-up. By framing the purposes so tightly, the model emphasises that health data should be processed first and foremost to deliver care, not as a resource to be repurposed without control.

The patient follow-up model also signals that some uses of health data require an even higher level of scrutiny. It states that processing for purposes other than those listed must be subject to specific authorisation. It mentions, among excluded purposes, scientific research that is independent of medical follow-up, as well as the processing of genetic and genomic data. This distinction is important in a context where the line between care and research can become blurred, especially when data can be aggregated and analysed at scale. The model also describes the types of data that may be involved, ranging from identity data and contact details to financial information needed for payment, and of course, medical data concerning the patient’s health status. It insists on obtaining consent, informing patients, ensuring security and confidentiality, and controlling transfers abroad, reinforcing the idea that sensitivity calls for discipline at each step.

Video surveillance in healthcare establishments

The fourth decision issued in 2025 concerns video surveillance inside healthcare establishments. Cameras can sometimes play a role in care, for example when constant visual monitoring is necessary for patient safety, but the same cameras can also become intrusive if used without strict limits. The CNDP model applies when a healthcare establishment wants to install a video surveillance system to monitor patients and visitors, and staff who are in contact with these patients and visitors. It limits the processing to specific purposes: surveillance and control of patients, and monitoring interactions between staff and patients and visitors, notably during medical procedures. The framing is significant because it positions the camera system within a care context rather than as a general surveillance tool, while still acknowledging that such processing is sensitive and needs prior authorisation.

The safeguards in the healthcare camera model focus strongly on proportionality. Cameras must only be installed in spaces where constant visual monitoring of patients is necessary, or where medical follow-up requires ongoing visual control to ensure the administration and quality of care. The model also states that installation must not be excessive or intrusive with respect to staff. In particular, it cannot extend to areas reserved for staff and not accessible to patients and visitors, or more broadly, to areas where there is no interaction with patients and visitors. The model also sets a concrete retention rule: recordings should not be kept beyond six months after the patient leaves the establishment, unless another legal rule requires otherwise.

Access control logs

The fifth decision of 2025 deals with access control in private professional premises, a routine that many people experience without thinking of it as data processing. A visitor book at reception, a digital check-in system, or an access badge log can all create a record of who entered a place, when, and for what reason. The CNDP model starts by clarifying that any register or file containing personal data about visitors for access control purposes is personal data processing. It then restricts the acceptable purposes to verifying identity, controlling access, securing the premises and the people and goods inside, keeping time-stamped entry and exit information, and producing statistics about attendance. These are common sense purposes, but the clarification is important because access control logs can otherwise be quietly expanded into broader monitoring tools.

The access control model also shows how the CNDP applies data minimisation in a concrete way. It lists the data that may be collected, such as the visitor name, the date and time of the visit, the purpose of the visit, and the service and person visited. It sets a maximum retention period of one year unless another legal rule requires longer. Most strikingly, it addresses identity documents. If a security agent asks to see an identity document to verify identity, the model indicates that the agent has no right to retain the document and no right to make a copy. The CNDP considers keeping an identity card number or copying an identity document to be excessive and disproportionate for simple access control, which can be satisfied by consultation without retention.

What these five decisions have in common

Across the five decisions the CNDP repeatedly sets limits on purpose, it narrows what data may be collected, it links retention to necessity, and it insists on transparent information to individuals. It also repeatedly emphasises security and confidentiality and requires that subcontractors offer sufficient guarantees, often through contractual clauses. Finally, it consistently restricts transfers of personal data abroad without prior authorisation. These are not merely bureaucratic steps. They are practical levers that reduce the chance of misuse and the impact of incidents, and they also help create a shared language of trust between data controllers and data subjects.

A decision in preparation on artificial intelligence

In addition to these decisions, the CNDP announced on its website that it was preparing a decision on AI and data protection. In the context of preparatory work, the authority launched auditions and held meetings with different stakeholders, including political parties and professionals working on law, data and related subjects, in order to gather views before issuing guidance on this theme. The CNDP approach, as publicly presented, places emphasis on integrity, transparency, fairness and clarity in AI processing that uses personal data, and on ensuring that citizens have access to remedies. This upcoming decision is expected to address a subject that is increasingly visible to ordinary people, even when it remains invisible in daily interactions: automated decisions that can shape access to services, prioritisation, recommendations, or risk assessments.

A surveillance decision also announced

The CNDP website also announced that a surveillance decision is in the pipeline. This comes in a context where cameras have multiplied and where surveillance systems can now be connected, searched, and sometimes combined with advanced analytics. Morocco already has a first decision on video surveillance issued in 2013, which addressed the conditions necessary to implement a video surveillance system in workplaces and in private common areas. That 2013 framework set a security purpose as the main justification, required camera placement that avoids intrusion into private spaces, required visible information to people, and limited retention of images to a defined period. A new decision may cover areas that were not covered by the previous text, reflecting how surveillance has expanded in scope and technical capacity.

It may also take a more targeted form, focusing on CCTV cameras within a specific activity, much like the CNDP did in 2025 for healthcare establishments. The healthcare model shows how general technology can be treated differently depending on context, with rules tailored to the sensitivity of the environment and the concrete needs of an activity. A future surveillance decision could similarly clarify what safeguards are required in settings beyond workplaces and private common areas, or it could define stricter conditions for certain uses that raise particular concerns for privacy.

Conclusion

For data controllers, these developments provide more predictable parameters for compliance. The models clarify what is expected and reduce guesswork. For data subjects, they make rights more tangible. A person can better understand why a website asks for consent, why a clinic needs certain information, why a camera should not be placed everywhere, or why a receptionist should not photocopy an identity card. In this sense, the 2025 decisions and the announced work on AI and surveillance underline a basic expectation people have today – that personal data should be used carefully, the reasons for use should be explained, and unnecessary intrusion should be avoided.

DLA Piper Casablanca

CFC Cube Tower
Casablanca Finance City
Casablanca
Morocco

+212 520 427 827

sara.essouar@dlapiper.com www.dlapiper.com
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Authors



DLA Piper Casablanca has three legal specialists and one counsel in its data protection and privacy team, all of whom are able to work in Arabic, English and French. The team regularly assists clients in the context of digital transformation projects, IT regulations queries, and cybersecurity issues. Regarding data privacy specifically, they advise and assist clients in compliance processes relating to data protection, cross-border data transfers, privacy impact assessments, and vendor management and third-party risk. Some of their relevant work includes drafting and reviewing privacy policies for CFC Authority, Four Seasons Hotels, AIG, FMC Corporation, HCL Technologies, Vivo Mobile Communications, Infobip and TikTok.

Trends and Developments

Authors



DLA Piper Casablanca has three legal specialists and one counsel in its data protection and privacy team, all of whom are able to work in Arabic, English and French. The team regularly assists clients in the context of digital transformation projects, IT regulations queries, and cybersecurity issues. Regarding data privacy specifically, they advise and assist clients in compliance processes relating to data protection, cross-border data transfers, privacy impact assessments, and vendor management and third-party risk. Some of their relevant work includes drafting and reviewing privacy policies for CFC Authority, Four Seasons Hotels, AIG, FMC Corporation, HCL Technologies, Vivo Mobile Communications, Infobip and TikTok.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.