On Friday, 20 June 2025, a non-binding opinion (tesis aislada) was published by the Second Collegiate Court in Administrative Affairs of the First Circuit, which defines the scope of Indautor’s authority to request information from private parties.
Precedent Citation Code
I.20.A.8 A (11a.). Amparo review (amparo directo) 455/2024. 13 February 2025. Unanimous vote. Justice: Óscar Palomo Carrasco. Secretaria: Daniela Patiño Acosta.
Case Background
At the request of an individual, Indautor sought information from a legal entity. When no response was received, the statements of the requesting party were taken as true.
Legal Precedents
Indautor’s authority to request reports and information is linked to the investigation of alleged administrative infringements, which can only be exercised within one of the procedures regulated by the applicable law-such as conciliation or infringement proceedings under copyright law-and not in an isolated or autonomous manner.
Legal Effects of the Case Law
1.- Limitation on Indautor’s scope of action. The exercise of its powers must be integrated within the framework of a formal procedure (for example, conciliation or infringement proceedings). This restricts any informal or isolated action initiated solely at the request of private individuals.
2.- Interrelation of powers. Indautor’s attributionssuch as requesting information, conducting inspection visits, and investigating alleged infringements- cannot be exercised independently, but must operate as parts of a cohesive procedural framework. This prevents, for instance, an information request from producing legal consequences without the support of a valid procedure.
3.- Protection of due process. The ruling strengthens the principles of legality and due process by preventing unilateral information requests from being treated as presumptively true or resulting in sanctions, without providing a real opportunity for defense within a formally instituted procedure.
4.- Guidance for private parties. Those who receive informal or procedurally irregular requests from Indautor may challenge them on the basis of this ruling, arguing that they lack validity for not complying with the LFDA and its regulations.
Questions and Comments
If you have any questions, or would like more detailed information, or need to review contracts to anticipate possible implications arising from this case law, our Dispute Resolution and Intellectual Property practice areas are fully prepared to provide strategic support. Our team will assist you in evaluating the matter and will propose tailored legal solutions aligned with your organization’s objectives and needs.
