Go to main content
Santamarina and Steta digital platforms in Mexico

Digital platforms in Mexico: new tax and labor obligations 2025

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Updates.

On June 22, the "Decree Adding Various Provisions to the Federal Labor Law Regarding Digital Platforms" came into force, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on December 24, 2024. As a result, in recent days there have been pronouncements by the authorities involved in its implementation, which are important to know to ensure compliance and avoid the imposition of sanctions.

For context, this Decree incorporated platform work as a special type of work into the Federal Labor Law (LFT), and modified several provisions applicable to these workers. Among the obligations that came into effect on June 22, the following stand out:

  • A digital platform worker is considered to be someone who provides personal, paid, and subordinate services under the command and supervision of a natural or legal person that offers services to third parties through a digital platform, and who generates net monthly income equivalent to at least one monthly minimum wage in Mexico City ($8,480.17 MXN in 2025).
  • If they do not exceed the net income threshold at the end of each month, they will be considered self-employed.
    • During this period and for the time actually worked, they will be granted the rights provided to digital platform workers, with the exception of the withholding and payment of social security contributions to the IMSS and payment of contributions to INFONAVIT.
  • Employers will be responsible for paying insurance under the social security system when an occupational hazard occurs during actual work time.
  • Platform workers will enjoy all rights, including collective rights.
  • Specific rules are established for determining wages, and tips are excluded from the base salary.
  • Platform workers will be entitled to share in company profits (PTU) when they actually work more than 288 hours per year.
    • The time actually worked is understood to be the time from the moment the employee agrees to provide a task, service, work or job on the digital platform until the moment in which said service is finally concluded.
  • If a digital platform worker ceases to be active for a consecutive period of 30 calendar days, the employment relationship will be deemed automatically terminated, with no liability or compensation payable by the employer.
    • If the person once again meets the conditions for becoming an employee, this will be understood as the beginning of a new employment relationship.
  • Employers may refuse to reinstate a digital platform worker by paying compensation consisting of three months' salary, plus twenty days' salary for each year of service rendered, taking into account the time actually worked, past-due wages, and interest, if applicable.
    • Compensation will be calculated based on the average salary earned by the individual on the platform over the past six months.
    • However, mandatory reinstatement will be required in the event of a violation of collective rights, such as freedom of association, union autonomy, the right to strike, and collective bargaining.
  • The contract model will be authorized and registered by the Federal Center for Labor Conciliation and Registration and must meet certain requirements pursuant to Article 291-H of the LFT.
  • Employers must develop an algorithmic work management policy document that informs employees about the elements used by algorithms for decision-making that may affect the employment relationship.
  • Special obligations for employers include payment for services rendered within a period of no more than one week, issuing payment receipts, establishing mechanisms for recording hours worked and waiting times, among others.
  • Special grounds for termination are established, in addition to those provided for in Article 47 of the LFT, as well as a special ground for termination of the employment relationship due to the disabling or closure of the platform.
  • Specific penalties are provided for failure to comply with the rules applicable to this special work.

It is important to take into account that on June 24, 2025, the H. Technical Council of the IMSS published Agreement ACDO.AS2.HCT.270525/132.P.DIR, which approves the General Rules of the pilot test for the incorporation of digital platform workers into the mandatory social security regime, as well as its Sole Annex, which entered into force on July 1, 2025. As of June 25, the new version 3.6.6 of the Single Self-Determination System (SUA) is available, in which adjustments for digital platform patterns are considered and the possibility of making donations to FUNDEMEX is eliminated.

Likewise, on June 26, INFONAVIT published the Notice by which the general public is informed of the Sole Annex of the Agreement approving the General Rules issued by the Board of Directors of the National Workers' Housing Fund Institute, with the purpose of regulating the Institute's participation in the pilot test provided for in the Second and Third Transitory Articles of the "Decree by which various provisions of the Federal Labor Law are added, regarding Digital Platforms" published on December 24, 2024.

Likewise, on June 27, the Ministry of Labor and Social Security published the General Provisions that determine the procedures for calculating the net income of digital platform workers. These provisions emphasize the exclusion of a differentiated percentage for the use of the digital platform as a technological work tool, establishing maximum factors depending on the type of vehicle used to provide the service, in order to establish a compensation mechanism proportional to the actual conditions under which work on digital platforms is carried out. These Provisions entered into force on July 1, 2025.

For its part, on June 27, the Mexican tax authority published regulatory criterion 59/ISR/IVA/N in an advance version and determined that individuals who provide services over the Internet, through technological platforms, computer applications and similar, who are considered employees of said platforms due to the entry into force of the reform to the LFT, will continue to pay taxes under the same regime as they previously did, that is, under the business activities regime in the section of income from the provision of services through digital platforms for both the Income Tax Law and the Value Added Tax Law.

This generates a disautonomy since for tax purposes their income is not considered as salaries and wages and therefore individuals will have to continue complying with their tax obligations, among others, such as the issuance of digital tax receipts ("CFDI") and for labor purposes they are considered as workers of said platforms, especially since employers have the obligation to issue weekly receipts of payments made where the number of tasks, services, works or jobs performed is recorded, the time actually worked, the time during which the worker is at the disposal of the platform for the assignment of a task, service, work or job, the legal withholdings that may apply and other similar concepts that are appropriate.

There are even some platforms that do not have a subsidiary in Mexico or a permanent establishment in Mexico, which creates uncertainty about compliance with their labor and tax obligations, including issuing CFDI (Financial Divergent Taxpayer Identification Number), tax withholding, and calculating PTU (Profit Sharing).

We are happy to assist you in analyzing the implications of these new labor and tax obligations.

AFTER THE ELECTION

After the Election

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in S+S Litigation Newsletter.

"There is no deadline that is not met”. Everyone knows the commonplace that this phrase entails. For the purposes of the Mexican legal system and, specifically, for the reconfiguration of the Federal Judiciary (PJF), we are at that exact moment. After more than a year of discussing, commenting, criticizing, studying, analyzing, and dissecting the so-called judicial reform, materialized through the Constitutional Reform Decree of September 2024, we have finally witnessed the culmination of the first part of said reform, with the holding of the extraordinary election of June 1st.

With the election and vote count carried out by the National Electoral Institute, the process to determine who will be the judges who will join the PFJ as of September 1, 2025, has ended. In this way, all the previous steps provided for in said Decree are behind us, consisting, in general terms, of the call to present candidacies, their qualification, the drawing of the positions that would go to this extraordinary election in 2025 (half of the judges and magistrates that are part of the PJF), the integration of the evaluation committees of the three powers of the Union, the designation or drawing of the candidates, the design of the ballots and voting centers, the electoral campaigns, the appearance of the "accordions"voting and, finally, election day.

Thus, we now know who the elected officials are for each position and, consequently, who will take office as ministers, magistrates, and judges on September 1, 2025. This is the first part of the reform; the second is what will happen once the new judges take office. Given this situation, I consider it necessary to make certain comments and reflections on what's next? What will happen after the election?

  • Courts and tribunals

On September 1st, the elected officials in each of the judicial bodies will take office. Some of these judges and magistrates were in office before the reform and decided to participate in the election. In this regard, it is essential to remember and bear in mind that the new judges only represent half of the judges and magistrates who make up the PJF (Federal Judicial Power). The other half will remain in their positions, as they were before the reform. This is important, as a very broad base of experienced and career judges will remain, and this will be more notable and significant in the collegiate bodies, where old and new profiles will invariably coincide.

Another fundamental point to keep in mind is that, regardless of whether the judge is a newly elected judge or a former career judge, all rulings and decisions must, invariably and without exception, strictly adhere to the text of the law, regardless of political affiliations, dislikes, and biases. Additionally, all judges, without exception, are obligated to adhere to and apply existing case law. Failure to do so may result in any judge being subject to investigation and sanction by the new Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal.

  • Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN)

It will have a new composition with 9 ministers, instead of the 11 currently planned, who will function and meet exclusively in Plenary Sessions, eliminating the two Chambers that currently operate. First, I estimate that this will cause a greater delay in the study and resolution of issues, (i) due to the learning curve that will be involved in having people without judicial experience coming to the SCJN to hear cases already filed there, plus those that will continue to be received on a daily basis; (ii) the simple fact that since there are fewer people, the number of matters assigned to each one will be greater, added to the fact that if they stick to the official discourse of austerity, no additional staff will be hired at the level of secretaries and officials, and (iii) given the fact that the vast majority of the files received by the SCJN were processed by the Chambers, in a much more agile manner than those referred to the Plenary, with only certain types of matters (the most important ones) being reserved for the latter.

  • Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal

This newly created Court, made up of five elected judges, will come into operation, having the power to "order, ex officio or by complaint, the initiation of investigations, attract procedures related to serious offenses or acts that the laws designate as crimes, order precautionary and coercive measures and sanction public servants who incur in acts or omissions contrary to the law, the administration of justice or the principles of objectivity, impartiality, independence, professionalism or excellence, in addition to the matters determined by law" (fourth paragraph of article 100 of the Constitution). 

The sanctions that the Court may impose include reprimand, suspension, financial penalties, dismissal, and disqualification, in addition to reporting any potential crimes to the Public Prosecutor's Office. The Court's decisions will be final and unassailable, and therefore, no trial or appeal will be allowed.

Under the new constitutional framework, the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal will be the highest authority within the PJF, with broad discretion and power to investigate and sanction any judge, without the possibility of challenging or contesting its decisions.

  • Criteria and jurisprudence

While it is foreseeable that as time goes on we will begin to see some innovative criteria adopted by the SCJN and the Circuit Collegiate Courts, it is important to keep in mind that this will not happen immediately or drastically, as it is impossible to abruptly halt all jurisprudence. The Amparo Law establishes the terms and requirements necessary for it to be binding, as well as for its interruption. This requires the presentation of cases of a very diverse nature and subject matter over time, and that these cases involve legal situations covered by the jurisprudence in question, in addition to justifying the need to change the existing criteria. It should also be remembered that in the SCJN case, a supermajority of six votes will be required.

Clauses of express submission to a foreign jurisdiction in adhesion contracts

Clauses of express submission to a foreign jurisdiction in adhesion contracts: Are they valid?

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in S+S Litigation Newsletter.

Before getting into the subject, it is important to clarify that an adhesion contract is a pre-established agreement where a supplier draws up all the conditions –or clauses– unilaterally, without negotiation. The other party, known as the consumer or adherent, can only accept or reject those terms and conditions as stipulated by the supplier. These types of contracts are used –generally– to simplify and streamline the contractual relationship between a supplier and hundreds of thousands of people who purchase the same product or service (such as banking, insurance, telecommunications, streaming services, etc.).

In this sense, in this type of contract, the adherent is not free to configure the contractual content; they must accept or decline to sign a contract whose clauses they could not discuss or negotiate with their counterpart.

Due to the nature of adhesion contracts, the Federal Consumer Protection Law seeks to establish equity between the obligations and rights of suppliers and consumers, ensuring that the principles of justice and proportionality are respected, and prohibiting clauses in this type of contract that violate these principles.

Now, in relation to these disproportionate clauses, it is common practice for one of them to be the so-called "jurisdiction clauses." Jurisdiction clauses are contractual provisions by which the parties expressly agree on which court will have jurisdiction to hear and resolve any dispute arising from the interpretation, performance, or breach of the contract.

In adhesion contracts, suppliers often establish jurisdiction clauses based on their domicile, even if their product or service is marketed in a different country.

To counter this common contractual imbalance, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ("SCJN") has determined, through a mandatory precedent, that clauses that oblige consumers to submit to foreign jurisdictions in adhesion contracts, especially those of companies that operate in Mexico through the internet, directly violate the adherents' fundamental right of access to justice and are therefore invalid.

The SCJN's reasoning for declaring these clauses in adhesion contracts invalid can be summarized in four main arguments: (i) These clauses impose a disproportionate burden on the consumer, (ii) Consumer consent is not free or voluntary for the choice of jurisdiction, (iii) These clauses directly violate the fundamental right of access to justice; and, (iv) Providers offering digital services to consumers in Mexico establish a clear economic and operational connection with Mexican territory, which justifies the jurisdiction of national courts.

  • (i) Disproportionate burden on the consumer

Forcing consumers to resolve a dispute in another country means incurring high costs (which most of them cannot afford). These costs are easily affordable for suppliers, as they are companies with greater legal and financial resources.

  • (ii) Consumer consent is not free or voluntary for the choice of jurisdiction

As already stated, by their nature, adhesion contracts do not allow for real negotiation of their terms; the consumer simply accepts or rejects the terms pre-established by the supplier. Therefore, when one of these clauses imposes foreign jurisdiction, it is understood that the consumer's consent is not free and voluntary regarding the choice of the place where the parties will resolve their disputes, but rather is imposed by the supplier.

This dynamic creates a situation in which acceptance of a foreign jurisdiction does not arise from a genuine choice, but rather from an imposition. The consumer is forced to "accept" a highly disadvantageous clause, or else be denied access to the service they desire or need.

This type of coerced "acceptance" vitiates consent, so the SCJN recognizes that, given the consumer's weak position vis-à-vis the provider, presuming free consent in a clause that so restricts their access to justice would be ignoring the economic and contractual reality of consumer relations.

  • (iii) Violation of the fundamental right of access to justice

When these jurisdiction clauses force Mexican consumers to litigate in foreign courts, they directly violate their fundamental right to access to justice. This is because they create barriers that make the exercise of this right unfeasible: the costs and complexities of international litigation are, for many, unaffordable or impractical.

For the SCJN, allowing a company to impose such conditions in a contract of adhesion is equivalent to depriving the consumer of the real possibility of seeking redress in the event of a conflict, thus nullifying the constitutional principle that justice must be accessible to all.

  • (iv) Existence of a territorial connection

When a company offers its products or services to consumers in Mexico through digital platforms, a clear territorial connection is established that justifies the jurisdiction of Mexican courts. The SCJN holds that the mere existence of a foreign jurisdiction clause cannot override the company's operational reality. Therefore, if an international company uses a website or application to conduct its business in Mexico, advertises in the country, allows payments in Mexican currency, or uses domains such as ".mx," it is creating a clear economic and operational connection with Mexican territory.

This territorial connection means that the legal consequences of their actions must be heard by the courts of the place where the damage occurred or where the consumer resides.

In conclusion, the SCJN's recent ruling sets a precedent for consumer rights in the digital sphere. Furthermore, observance and compliance with the provisions of this precedent are mandatory in Mexico.

This decision regulates commercial relationships arising from adhesion contracts, so companies operating in Mexico and formalizing the sale of their products or services through such contracts must be prepared to make the corresponding adjustments to their operations.

AUTHORS:

Julio Butrón – Associate

Pamela Balderas – Intern

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the Federal Court of Administrative Justice

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the Federal Court of Administrative Justice

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in S+S Litigation Newsletter.

On January 29, 2024, the General Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms came into force, introducing the application of such mechanisms in administrative matters, something previously not contemplated in any other regulation. To implement this, on May 12, 2025, the Regulations of the Public Center of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice ("TFJA") were issued, which identify negotiation, mediation, and conciliation as alternative mechanisms to trials; arbitration is expressly prohibited.

Considering the excessive workload of the TFJA, as well as the costs and time involved in any trial, we believe that the possibility of resolving tax and administrative disputes through these mechanisms is a great opportunity that should undoubtedly be seized. It is important to note that, in accordance with the Regulations, these mechanisms may last up to six months.

It should be noted that both the General Law and the Regulations allow for trials already in progress, including those already resolved but whose judgment has not yet been served, to be concluded in the Public Center, provided that the trials are being processed before the TFJA itself. Likewise, if the matter is still before an administrative authority, the intervention of the Public Center may be requested, provided that the specific regulations of the administrative procedure do not provide for an alternative dispute resolution method.

The distinction between each mechanism is as follows:

  • Negotiation: The parties themselves resolve a dispute.
  • Mediation: The parties are assisted and supported by a facilitator, who will lead the procedure but will not actively participate.
  • Conciliation: The facilitator does act actively to resolve the dispute.

To facilitate access to these mechanisms, the possibility of processing them online is provided, while also remaining open to in-person processing, and even allowing for hybrid processing.

Likewise, both the General Law and the Regulations provide for the suspension of procedural deadlines upon the initiation of an alternative mechanism, which allows for ample opportunity to conclude the dispute and, if this fails to happen, to continue with the normal course of proceedings and trials.

Currently, the head of the Public Council has not been appointed, nor are the operating manuals it will issue available; nor have the certifications been issued to the facilitators of such mechanisms. Therefore, even though it is not yet possible to begin these processes, the issuance of the Regulations is a key step toward ensuring that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in fiscal and administrative matters materialize in the near future.

Santamarina Steta Podcast: The Silla Law and its Implementation in the Different Economic Sectors of Mexico

The 'Chair Law' and its implementation in the different economic sectors of Mexico

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this new episode of Legal Evolution, we are joined by Juan Carlos Machorro, partner at our firm and host of the podcast, and Gonzalo de la Rosa, from our labor practice in Querétaro, to discuss the so-called "Chair Law," which came into effect on June 17, 2025. This new regulation requires companies and employers to provide chairs and rest areas for their employees and collaborators. We discuss the differentiated obligations by industry, the regulations that the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare can still issue, and how the implementation of this new requirement is playing out in the industry.

Santamarina Steta podcast: New information statement on the occupation of properties in Mexico City

New information statement on property occupation in Mexico City

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this new episode of Legal Evolution, we are joined by Vicente Grau, partner specializing in economic competition and real estate projects, who talks with Juan Carlos Machorro, partner at our firm, about the new obligation that expires this June 30 for owners of residential properties of a certain value, to submit an informative declaration regarding the occupancy of their properties.
We discussed the potential impact of this obligation on the country's need for greater housing development due to the current deficit, and on the growing push to regulate residential properties as temporary accommodation, such as Airbnb.

Santamarina Steta Energy Sector National Energy Commission

CNE resumes its functions: key issues for the energy sector

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Updates.

Executive Summary

On June 5, 2025, the National Energy Commission (“CNE”) published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (“DOF") he Agreement by which the deadlines and terms for the reception and processing of matters within the jurisdiction of the National Energy Commission are resumed, in accordance with the powers conferred and transferred to it, and establishes the strategy for their attention., (he "Agreement

Background:

Following the publication of the constitutional reform on organic simplification (DOF, December 20, 2024), the legal existence of the coordinated regulatory bodies in energy matters was eliminated: the Energy Regulatory Commission (“CRE”) and the National Hydrocarbons Commission (“CNH”). The functions and powers of both bodies were transferred to the Ministry of Energy (“SENER”) and the recently created CNE, a decentralized administrative body sectorized within SENER.

Subsequently, on March 18, 2025, the secondary energy laws were published, including the Law on the State-Owned Enterprise, the Federal Electricity Commission; the Law on the State-Owned Enterprise, Petróleos Mexicanos; the Electricity Sector Law; the Hydrocarbons Sector Law; the Energy Planning and Transition Law; the Biofuels Law; the Geothermal Energy Law; and the Law on the National Energy Commission. Thereafter, a 90-calendar-day period was established to suspend terms and guarantee an orderly transition, which concluded with the issuance of this Agreement.

Content of the Agreement:

As of June 6, 2025, the CNE will formally resume receiving, analyzing, and resolving procedures within its jurisdiction. This reactivation follows the completion of the transfer of functions, files, and systems from the defunct CRE, in compliance with the constitutional reform published in December 2024 and the secondary laws enacted in March 2025. The Agreement issued by the CNE establishes not only the lifting of the suspension of deadlines, but also operational guidelines to ensure the administrative and regulatory continuity of the energy sector.

This Agreement formalizes the CNE's entry into operation as the competent authority to process and resolve matters previously assigned to the CRE. This marks the end of the transitional period provided for in the constitutional and secondary reforms, and thus provides certainty to regulated entities regarding the new authority responsible for energy-related procedures.

However, this Agreement establishes some exceptions regarding procedures that cannot be submitted until the new sectoral regulations come into force, for example:

  • New electricity generation permits (except for priority projects).
  • New permits for the sale, distribution, or marketing of fuels.
  • Changes in corporate control or shareholding structure of permit holders.
  • Determination of consideration, prices and rates.

The processing of these cases will depend on the issuance of the new regulations and SENER's determination of which projects will be considered "priority." While this exception seeks to address urgent supply needs, it creates uncertainty until objective and transparent criteria are published.

As part of its operational strategy, the CNE has established various measures to ensure administrative continuity during the institutional transition. First, all documentation submitted during the suspension period is recognized as validly filed, effective June 6. Furthermore, the use of the Electronic Official Records Office (https://ope.cne.gob.mx) is enabled, and the temporary application of the guidelines and technical criteria of the defunct CRE is confirmed until they are replaced by the new regulations. Specific deadlines are also established for regulated entities to regularize their obligations:

  • 15 business days for the submission of pending reports; if they are not regularized, they will be subject to the initiation of the corresponding administrative procedures.
  • 30 calendar days for the reissuance of certificates by Inspection Units; certificates not reissued within this period will be void.
  • 10 business days to ratify procedures initiated before the CRE, using the format provided in Annex 1 of the Agreement. In cases where ratification is not made, it will be understood that there is no intention to continue with the matter.

Furthermore, the Agreement not only represents an administrative formality, but a practical redefinition of regulatory operations in Mexico. The CNE presents itself as the new central authority in energy matters, with key powers and responsibilities to guarantee the stability and continuity of energy policy. Permit holders in the sector must remain attentive to the regulatory and operational developments of this new phase, adapting their strategies and compliance as new regulations and applicable guidelines are issued.

The publication of this Agreement represents a turning point in the institutional transition of the Mexican energy sector. With the resumption of deadlines and timeframes by the CNE, the new regulatory model that replaces the coordinated energy regulatory bodies is officially launched, providing legal and operational certainty to both individuals and authorities.

Although the CNE is already authorized to handle most of these procedures, the full implementation of its powers will be gradual. Therefore, it is recommended that sector stakeholders carefully review the status of their procedures, identify potential outstanding obligations, and prepare to respond quickly to new CNE requirements. It will also be important to maintain constant monitoring of regulatory developments, especially with regard to the issuance of pending regulations, which will more clearly define the scope and conditions for operating under the new system.

Reference Links: https://sidofqa.segob.gob.mx/notas/5759417

Mexico,City,Financial,Center,Buildings,Near,Paseo,Reforma,And,Angel

New USA FCPA Guidelines makes it imperative for Mexican companies to implement robust compliance programs

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Updates.

Executive Summary

  • In line with President Trump’s Executive Order, the U.S. Department of Justice issued new guidelines for the enforcement of the FCPA, limiting investigations to serious misconduct involving organized crime, national security and competition. The aim is to avoid criminalizing "customary business practices" involving facilitating and/or expediting payments. The latter constitutes a call for Mexican companies to make sure to have robust compliance programs in line with all applicable anti-corruption provisions, taking into account that under Mexican law, all forms of corruption are strictly prohibited, which, if verfied, may result in significant administrative and/or criminal penalties.

In accordance with the Executive Order signed by President Donald J. Trump on February 10, the Department of Justice issued on June 9, the guidelines to be observed when pursuing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions.

  • President Trump´s Executive Order directed for the Department of Justice to cease initiation of any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions and review all existing ones until updated guidelines or policies were issued, guaranteeing the efficient use of federal law enforcement resources prioritizing American economic competitiveness in accordance with his foreign policy prerogatives.
  • In compliance with what was set in place in such Executive Order, the Department of Justice issued the instructed guidelines, calling prosecutors to consider when pursuing FCPA investigations and enforcement actions, among others, the following criterion:
    • Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations. Consider whether the alleged misconduct is associated with the criminal operations of a Cartel or Transnational Criminal Organizations (“TCOs”); involves money launderers that engage in money laundering for Cartels or TCOs; or is linked to employees of state-owned entities or other foreign officials who have received bribes from Cartels or TCOs.  
    • Safeguarding Fair Opportunities for U.S. Companies. Prioritize the investigation and prosecution of conducts undermining the principles of competitiveness, national security and economic prosperity, focusing on pursuing companies that bribe foreign officials to obtain or retain business at the expense of a fair access to compete, seeking to equally prosecute, foreign officials demanding such briberies and the entities or individuals acceding to such requests.
    • Advancing U.S. National Security. Combat the most urgent threats to national security resulting from bribery of foreign public officials involving key U.S. infrastructure and/or assets.
    • Prioritize Investigations of Serious Misconduct. Prosecutors are called not to penalize Americans for “routine business practices in other nations”, mindful that the FCPA contains an exception for facilitating and expediting payments, allowing affirmative defenses for reasonable and bona fide expenditures that are lawful under the laws of the corresponding foreign country. FCPA investigations and enforcement actions shall not focus on alleged misconduct involving routine business practices entailing de minimis courtesies. Rather, focus should be put on alleged misconduct that bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to sophisticated bribery schemes and efforts to obstruct justice.

  • Such guidelines are an important call for Mexican companies to review their compliance programs, making sure they comply with the applicable laws, regulations, guidelines and/or principles, of any jurisdiction in which they have presence, underlining that for the specific case of Mexico, there is an absolute prohibition to incur in conducts resulting in corruption, including the realization of facilitating and expediting payments, which if carried out, may result in the imposition of important sanctions resulting from the update of a serious administrative fault or criminal offense.

The “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA” are available in the following link: Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Santamarina Steta podcast: Patent registration at the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property

Patent registration at the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

Mexico is a country that does not have a tradition of registering patents with the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). For this new episode of Legal Evolution, Juan Carlos Machorro, a partner at our firm, speaks with María Ordorica and Arturo Carmona, associates at Santamarina y Steta, about the regulations for registering new patents and the importance of registration, as well as iconic cases of Mexican patents.

Santamarina Steta podcast: Water tensions between the United States and Mexico

Water tensions between the United States and Mexico

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this episode of Legal Evolution, we discuss a recent point of tension in relations between Mexico and the United States: water resources along the border between the two countries. Juan Carlos Machorro, a partner at the firm, speaks with Angélica López and David González, associates specializing in environmental law and water projects, about the 1944 treaty that regulates the exchange of water resources between the two nations. We analyze Mexico's alleged non-compliance with the treaty, the existence of arguments to support claims of non-compliance by our northern neighbor, and the existing arguments for revising the terms of the treaty in light of current conditions and the changes that have occurred since its signing in the 40s, including the impacts of climate change.

Reform of the Public Works Law

Report on the Amendment to the Public Works and Related Services Law

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Updates.

Executive Summary

On April 16, 2025, an amendment to the Law on Public Works and Related Services (Ley de Obras Públicas y Servicios Relacionados con las Mismas, "LOPSRM") was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation. This amendment, promoted by the Head of the Federal Executive Branch, aims to strengthen the regulatory framework for public procurement, thereby ensuring the quality of infrastructure and the efficient use of public resources. This amendment addresses previously identified deficiencies that hindered these objectives and it represents a structural change in how the Mexican State plans, procures, executes, and oversees public works by incorporating principles of transparency, efficiency, and digitalization.

Among the most significant changes are the creation of a new Digital Public Procurement Platform, the introduction of new bidding procedures, the mandatory use of an electronic logbook, and limitations on subcontracting. These measures seek to enhance accountability, reduce discretionary areas, and promote greater competition in the sector.

Main changes

  1. Digital Public Procurement Platform

One of the pillars of the amendment is the creation of a new digital platform that replaces the former platform, known as “CompraNet”. This tool centralizes the entire procurement cycle, from planning to agreement signing, allowing for real-time traceability and public access to information. The platform also incorporates electronic signature mechanisms and the automated tracking of procedures.

  1. New Procurement Procedures

The amendment introduces concepts such as strategic dialogues, which allow government agencies to interact with potential suppliers before launching an official call, aiming to improve the technical quality of projects. Subsequent discount offers are also incorporated, enabling bidders, after the presentation and opening of proposals, to electronically submit additional offers to improve the initial price offered. This aims to secure better prices for the State and foster competitiveness among participants. Furthermore, the use of the points and percentages method in proposal evaluation is strengthened, prioritizing companies with integrity and compliance policies.

  1. Mandatory Electronic Logbook

The amendment establishes the mandatory use of an electronic logbook for all public works agreements. This digital tool allows for real-time recording of progress, incidents, and modifications during the execution of the work.

  1. Regulated Subcontracting and Limitations

The amendment imposes a limit of 49% (forty-nine percent) of the total agrement amount for subcontracting, aiming to prevent the fragmentation of responsibilities and ensure that the main contractor has the technical and operational capacity. Additionally, it prohibits subcontracting companies that participated in the same official call, reducing the probabilities of potential fraudulent arrangements.

  1. Reduced Deadlines and Greater Agility

Legal deadlines are reduced for various stages of the procurement process, including proposal submission and award announcement. It also allows for the agreement to be awarded to the second-place bidder if the first fails to sign, provided the price difference does not exceed 10% (ten percent).

  1. Updated Obligated Parties and Exclusions

The amendment clarifies that all entities that exercise federal resources are subject to this law, including states, municipalities, and autonomous bodies, unless they have a specific exemption or regulatory framework. Works carried out by state-owned public companies and those necessary for public service concessionaires are also expressly excluded.

  1. Inclusion of New Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

A chapter on arbitration and other alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes related to contract interpretation or execution was also added. This seeks to streamline conflict resolution and prevent disputes from delaying the execution of work.

In this regard, the April 2025 amendment represents a significant effort to modernize Mexico's public procurement system. By incorporating digital tools, new bidding procedures, and stricter control mechanisms, the amendment has the potential to significantly improve transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the execution of public works.

However, its success will largely depend on the practical implementation of secondary provisions, the training of public servants, and the political effort to apply the law uniformly. The exclusions granted to the Armed Forces, as well as the vagueness in specific exception clauses, represent significant risks that could weaken regulatory progress and perpetuate opacity schemes that have historically favored corruption if not adequately corrected or supervised.

One of the main changes introduced by the amendment is the creation and operation of a new Digital Public Procurement Platform. This tool, named Compras MX, was officially inaugurated on April 18, 2025, by the Ministry of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance, replacing the old CompraNet system.

Compras MX was designed to centralize and transparentize information related to public procurement of goods, services, and works. Its objective is to facilitate access to transparent, timely, and detailed data on the use of public resources for citizens, businesses, and government entities alike. Unlike its predecessor, this platform not only facilitates the consultation of processes but also aims to operate as a transactional system that streamlines procedure management, fosters competition, and enhances accountability.

Santamarina Steta podcast: The ups and downs of the global financial market, the domino effect on Latin American markets

The ups and downs of the global financial market: a domino effect in Latin American markets

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this new episode of Legal Evolution, Juan Carlos Machorro, a partner at our firm, and Arturo Yamil Alvarado, an associate specializing in banking and finance law, discuss the current uncertainty in global markets. Specifically, they analyze how the economic policies of President Donald Trump's administration have caused significant market fluctuations, and how these movements may impact emerging economies, particularly in Latin America.