United States: Time For A Reboot? FDA Issues Draft Guidance On When To Submit A 510(k) For A Software Change To An Existing Device

In early August 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for Device and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued a Draft Guidance for industry entitled Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Software Change to an Existing Device (Draft Guidance). When finalized, the guidance will assist industry and CDRH in determining when a software (including firmware) change to a 510(k)-cleared or a pre-amendments device subject to 510(k) (existing devices) may require a manufacturer to submit and obtain FDA clearance of a new premarket notification (510(k)).

Comments on the Draft Guidance are due to CDRH by November 7, 2016 (Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0453). In addition, CDRH held a webinar on August 25, 2016 to discuss the Draft Guidance.

The Draft Guidance does not address modifications to devices that are 510(k)-exempt or require premarket approval (PMA). The Draft Guidance does not apply to software for which the Agency has stated in guidance that it does not intend to enforce compliance with applicable regulatory controls (see, e.g., Mobile Medical Applications Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff). The Draft Guidance also does not specifically address combination products, though FDA clarified that the "general principles and concepts ... may be helpful to manufacturers." FDA also clarified that the Draft Guidance does not address:

FDA also announced a second draft guidance to industry on Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device, which would supersede FDA's 1997 guidance of the same name when finalized. This new draft guidance addresses non-software modifications.


FDA regulations require medical device manufacturers to provide notification to FDA when the entity intends to significantly change or modify the design, components, method of manufacturer, or intended use of the device. In particular, 21 C.F.R. § 807.81(a)(3) requires manufacturers to submit a premarket notification to FDA if the "change or modification in the device [] could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, e.g., a significant change or modification in design, material, chemical composition, energy source, or manufacturing process," or a "major change or modification in the intended use of the device." FDA's 1997 guidance attempted to clarify when a change could trigger a new 510(k), but FDA recognized that the phrase "could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device" and the use of the adjectives "major" and "significant" have lead FDA and device manufacturers to different interpretations.

For purposes of the Draft Guidance, FDA defined "software" to mean a "set of electronic instructions used to control the actions or output of a medical device, to provide input to or output from a medical device, or to provide the actions of a medical device." FDA further clarified that this definition includes:

  • software that is embedded within or permanently a component of a medical device;
  • software that is an accessory to another medical device; or
  • software that is intended to be used for one or more medical purposes that perform these purposes without being part of a hardware medical device.

The Draft Guidance explains that software modifications can take numerous forms, including, but not limited to, the following:

  • Adaptive – modification of software to keep it usable in a changed or changing environment;
  • Corrective – reactive modification of software to address discovered faults; or
  • Perfective – modification of software to improve performance or maintainability.

Regardless of the form or name of the modification (e.g., bug fix, hot patch, software change or tweak), FDA regulations provide that such modifications are design changes under the Quality System (QS) regulation, 21 CFR Part 820.


Based on existing FDA 510(k) policy and experience, FDA outlined the following non-binding "guiding principles" for manufacturers to consider when deciding whether to submit a new 510(k).

  • Whether modifications are made with the intent to significantly affect safety or effectiveness of a device.1
  • Conducting a risk-based assessment of whether a change "could significantly affect" a device's safety or effectiveness.2
  • Assessing whether there are any unintended consequences from the changes.3
  • Use of risk management.4
  • Evaluating simultaneous changes separately, as well as in the aggregate.
  • Compare a changed device to the device as previously found to be substantially equivalent in their most recently cleared 510(k) (or to their pre-amendments device, if no 510(k) has been cleared). Make this comparison each time a change is made, as well as the cumulative impact of all changes since the most recently cleared 510(k).
  • Document all device changes in compliance with the QS regulation.
  • 510(k) submissions for modified devices with multiple modifications should describe all changes that trigger the requirement for a new 510(k), as well as all other modifications since the last cleared 510(k)(e.g., those document as part of the original 510(k)).5
  • Substantial equivalence determinations are not assured by complying with the Draft Guidance.


The Draft Guidance provides industry with a flowchart, text with considerations, and examples (Appendix A of the Draft Guidance)6 of the most common software modifications to help manufacturers decide whether to submit a new 510(k) for a software change to an existing device. FDA explained that manufacturers should use the flowchart in concert with the guiding principles noted above, as well as additional factors discussed below in Section IV of this advisory. FDA further explained that in deciding whether to submit a new 510(k) for changes, the manufacturer's basis for comparison of any changed device should be the device described in the most recently cleared 510(k) or to the legally-marketed pre-amendments device.

A. New 510(k) Likely Not Required

Cybersecurity (Flowchart Question 1): Under the Draft Guidance, changes "made solely to strengthen cybersecurity" are not likely to require a new 510(k) when there is no other impact on the software or device. FDA considers cybersecurity updates a subset of software changes that are implemented to strengthen the security of a system, protect information, and reduce disruption in service. FDA expects manufacturers to ensure that such changes do not impact the performance of the device by performing necessary analysis, verification, and/or validation.

  • Software Security Patch (FDA Example 1.1 7): FDA stated that a new 510(k) would likely not be required if a manufacturer modifies software solely to remove a security vulnerability and has determined the change does not have any other impact on the software or device.
  • Encryption, Access Control (FDA Example 1.2 8): FDA explained that a new 510(k) would likely not be required if a manufacturer: (1) modifies software to add encryption to the configuration file of the device; (2) adds passcode requirements for remote users; (3) adds a timeout for remote users; and (4) determines that such changes do not have any other impact on the software or device.

However, FDA clarified that if a manufacturer becomes aware of any incidental or unintended impacts of the change on other aspects of the software or device, the manufacturer should continue through the remaining Flowchart Questions, as outlined below.9

Return System Into Specification (Flowchart Question 2): When a change to the software only restores the device to the specifications of the most recently cleared device, then a new 510(k) is likely not required because it is unlikely that such restoration could significantly impact safety, effectiveness, or intended use of the device.

  • Data Error (FDA Example 2.410): In vitro diagnostic (IVD) analyzer software experienced a software bug that mistakenly merged new data with existing data in a database table. A coding error caused this anomaly but did not affect any other software requirements. The manufacturer corrected the code to ensure that the software did not merge new data with existing data and did not change any specification or functionality of the most recently cleared device. For this example, FDA stated that a new 510(k) would likely not be required.

Conversely, "[m]issing, incomplete, ambiguous, or conflicting software requirements may lead to a software modification that involves updating specifications, resulting in additional software code changes." The Draft Guidance explains that in these situations, "the answer to this question is likely no and the manufacturer should proceed to Question 3."11

  • Database Error (FDA Example 2.512): Using the same example above, the manufacturer determined that the cause of the software bug was an incorrectly worded software requirement that led to an error in software code. The manufacturer rewrote the software requirement and made an additional software change to ensure that the software did not merge new data with existing data. This required the creation of an entirely separate database within the instrument software, as well as a specification change. FDA concluded that the answer to this question would be "No" because these actions caused a change to the design specifications of the software.

B. A New 510(k) is Likely Required (If the Answer is Yes to Questions 3-6)

1. New or Modified Cause of a Hazardous Situation (Flowchart Question 3)

A "hazardous situation" exists when a there is a potential source of harm (e.g., potential exposure to physical injury or damage to the health of people). The term "cause" refers to the cause of a hazardous situation, as identified and defined by the manufacturer in the risk management file for the device. "Significant harm" refers to situations where the risk level is serious or more severe, (e.g., the risk could result in injury or impairment requiring professional medical intervention, permanent impairment, or death, echoing FDA's definitions for reportable medical device-related adverse events at 21 CFR 803). According to the revised Draft Guidance, if all of the following criteria are met, then a new 510(k) is likely required:

  • the change leads the manufacturer to document a new cause or the modification of an existing cause in the risk management file;13
  • the level of harm associated with the new or modified cause is considered serious or more severe;14 and
  • the hazardous situation associated with the new or modified cause is not already effectively mitigated in the most recently cleared device.15
  • Adding a New Diagnostic Parameter (FDA Example 3.116): FDA cleared an electroencephalogram (EEG) with spectral edge frequency (SEF) and peak power (PP) as quantitative parameters. A manufacturer modifies the software to add Amplitude Integrated EEG (aEGG) as an additional quantitative parameter that was not included in the original premarket notification. FDA explained that a new 510(k) is required because: (1) aEEG introduces a new cause related to an error in the aEEG calculation (risk of incorrect or confusing information to a physician leading to misdiagnosis; and (2) the new cause is not effectively mitigated in the most recently cleared device and the hazardous situation (misdiagnosis) could result in significant harm.
  • Removing a Diagnostic Parameter (FDA Example 3.217): Conversely, if the manufacturer modifies the software to remove peak power (PP) from the displayed quantitative parameters of the EEG, the answer to this question would be "No" because the removal of PP does not introduce a new cause or change an existing hazardous situation that is not effectively mitigated.

2. New or Modified Hazardous Situation (Flowchart Question 4)

Unlike the prior question, which focuses on whether a change creates a new cause of a hazardous situation, Flowchart Question 4 assesses whether a software change creates an entirely new hazardous change or modifies an existing hazardous situation. If all of the following criteria are met, a new 510(k) is likely required:

  • the change leads the manufacturer to document a new hazardous situation or the modification of an existing hazardous situation in the risk management file;18
  • the level of harm associated with the new or modified hazardous situation is considered serious or more severe;19
  • the hazardous situation is not effectively mitigated in the most recently cleared device.20
  • Customer Maintenance (FDA Example 4.121): A manufacturer makes a software modification to prevent a patient sample probe motor from overheating during a customer maintenance procedure. The software change applies a timeout to power being applied to the motor; after 10 minutes, power to the motor is turned off. An additional software change adds a message window alerting the user of the 10-minute window. FDA stated that the answer to this question would be "No" because although the change is to an existing hazard that was not appropriately mitigated in the cleared device, the hazard could not cause significant harm.
  • Adding new programming mode to cardiac monitor (FDA Example 4.2 22): A manufacturer modifies the software to the implantable, automatically-activated monitoring system to add an alternative programming mode that allows the device to interact with the programmer. The mode introduces new technology that impacts the safety profile of the device as a result of the energy transfer that occurs during programming. FDA explained that a new 510(k) is required because the feature introduces a new hazardous situation that could cause significant harm.

3. Create or Necessitate a New or Modified Risk Control (Flowchart Question 5)

Changes to risk control measures may be necessary due to new, modified, or previously unknown hazardous situations or causes thereof. If the changes to risk controls are necessary to effectively prevent significant harm, a new 510(k) is likely required.

  • Infusion pump alarm (FDA Example 5.523): FDA explained that a new 510(k) would be required if a firm updated software from an infusion pump as follows: the update would change the current single alarm that alerts the user when an occlusion has been detected to four alarms related to occlusion: air in line; no upstream flow; occlusion downstream and occlusion upstream. FDA stated that this change modified a current risk control (the alarm), which is necessary to effectively mitigate the hazardous situation that could result in significant harm.

However, FDA clarified that a new 510(k) is likely not required when a manufacturer implements additional risk control measures if they are not in response to a new, modified, or previously known hazardous situation or causes thereof. FDA stated that a new 510(k) is likely not required when implementing redundant risk control measures or enhancing existing risk control measures if the risk control measures in the most recently cleared device effectively mitigated the hazardous situation.

  • Print patient information in PACS report* (FDA Example 5.424): FDA maintained that a new 510(k) would likely not be required if a firm updated the software to a Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS) as follows: the current software prints images along with a copy of diagnostic findings from a radiologist; the update would change the software to print each page with patient information and demographics. FDA concluded that: (1) the risk had already been sufficiently mitigated with original risk controls; and (2) the software modification is a redundant risk control that was not made in response to a new, modified, or previously unknown hazardous situation.

    • * However, the firm would still need to analyze the software change under Question 6, discussed below.

4. Clinical Functionality or Performance Specifications Directly Associated with the Intended Use (Flowchart Question 6)

FDA explained that specification changes include elements that could influence a device's ability to clinically perform as intended, including but not limited to attributes such as speed, strength, response times, throughput, limits of operation, reliability, delivery rate, or assay performance. Accordingly, FDA maintained that if a software change could "significantly affect clinical functionality or performance specifications that are directly associated with the intended use of the device," a new 510(k) is likely required. This question, however, does not address "direct changes to the intended use of the device, which is addressed in FDA's guidance Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device (K97-1), which the new draft guidance of the same name would supersede when finalized.

  • Improve sample throughput 1 (FDA Example 6.125): A manufacturer makes a software performance enhancement to improve sample throughput time by 20%. Software modifications include changes to decrease assay cycle times by allowing for shorter sample reaction incubation times. Decreasing sample assay times could have an impact on run performance and/or assay performance in a manner that could have a negative impact on diagnosis or therapy delivered to patients. FDA explained that a new 510(k) would be required because the change would have a significant impact on the performance of the device.
  • Improve sample throughput 1* (FDA Example 6.226): A manufacturer is making a software modification to improve sample throughput by 5% by decreasing pre-analytic processing time. Software modifications include a change to decrease sample delivery time from the sample load area to the sample aspiration area. The change does not impact the sample analysis algorithm and has no impact on assay performance. FDA reasoned that the answer to this question would be "No" because the modifications do not impact assay performance as it relates to intended use.

    • * If the factors identified below are not relevant to this change, the firm must still document the change to file.

For IVDs, that "includes a change that could have clinically significant impact in terms of clinical decision-making." In a separate draft guidance document that would update the 1997 guidance on 510(k) changes, FDA significantly expanded its discussion of IVDs. In that guidance, FDA states that a 510(k) is required when changes to an IVD "introduce novel technology that could have an impact on the ability of the device to extract, isolate, or detect the analyte(s) and could therefore affect the value assigned to the specimen, or could produce deviations in device performance." FDA's November 2015 white paper, The Public Health Evidence for FDA Oversight of Laboratory-Developed Tests, includes twenty case studies in which false-positive tests resulted in unneeded treatments or false-negative tests caused "patients' life-threatening diseases" to go "undetected." IVD manufacturers should evaluate software changes with these views in mind.


In addition to Flowchart Questions described above, CDRH also recommended that industry address whether common software changes may require the submission of a new 510(k). FDA explained that general code changes to software may not necessarily be intended to change the function of software, but rather to perform "code maintenance" or "infrastructure" modifications. FDA noted, however, that such changes, "if not controlled properly, [could] create unexpected changes to how the device functions."

FDA also emphasized the need to assess how these types of changes affect the overall architecture of the software. For example, if the software architecture "was developed in a planned, modular format, the likelihood of unintended impact to other areas of the code may be significantly reduced." Conversely, software architecture built on a looser construct, without a clear architectural plan, increases the potential impact of a software change to device safety and effectiveness "due to the inherent risk of unintended changes in code without clear boundaries in the functional modules."

Accordingly, the Draft Guidance outlines the following, non-exhaustive list of common changes that industry should consider when determining if a new 510(k) is required.

  • Infrastructure changes: defined as "modifications made to the software support system" (e.g., "switching compilers, changing languages (C to C++, C++ to Java), or changing software drivers or libraries"). FDA explained that manufacturers must determine whether a new 510(k) is required because infrastructure changes could involve significant software re-write or significant changes to verification and validation scripts, though updates to scripts alone do not indicate a new 510(k) is required.
  • Architecture changes: defined as "modifications to the overall structure of the software" (e.g., "porting to a new OS, software changes to support a new hardware platform, and new middleware"). FDA noted that manufacturers must determine whether a new 510(k) is required because architecture changes could "impact the overall performance of the device or extend the environment in which the device can operate."
  • Core algorithm changes: defined as "modifications made to an algorithm that directly drive the device's intended use" (e.g., alarm algorithms to on a monitor, a motor control algorithm for an infusion pump, and a detection module and measurement engine algorithm for an IVD). Flowchart Question 6 addresses such changes.27
  • Clarification of Requirements – No change to Functionality: defined as "changes made to clarify software requirements after a product has received premarket clearance" (e.g., "revised phrasing of an existing requirement or creation of a new requirement altogether, without changing or adding functionality"). FDA explained that such changes likely do not require a new 510(k).
  • Cosmetic Changes – No change to Functionality: defined as "changes made to the appearance of the device that do not impact the clinical use of the device" (e.g., change the company logo displayed on the background of every screen). FDA noted that while this kind of change could require modifying multiple software modules, "it is unlikely that the intended change could impact the device's safety and effectiveness or intended use, and a new 510(k) is likely not required."
  • Reengineering and Refactoring:

    • FDA defined "reengineering" as the "examination and alteration of software to reconstitute it in a new form, and includes the subsequent implementation of the new form." Reengineering often replaces aging legacy software and "often results in broader and more complex changes."
    • FDA defined "refactoring" as the "disciplined technique for restricting a software program's internal structure without changing its clinical performance specification." FDA explained that refactoring "seeks to improve a program structure and its maintainability and is "often narrow in scope and less complex" than reengineering.
    • The Draft Guidance asserts that "minor modifications to enhance the maintainability of the device within its specification context are unlikely to require a new 510(k)."
    • Conversely, changes "involving significant software re-write likely require a new 510(k) because of the impact on the performance and risk controls."

FDA encouraged manufacturers to discuss these factors and "gray areas" with the relevant Center that originally cleared the product to help assess whether a new 510(k) is required.


FDA's Draft Guidance provides new clarity on the types of software changes that may require manufacturers and industry to submit a new 510(k). The detailed flowchart, additional factors, and various examples offer useful insight into how companies can approach any current or future software changes. This guidance is very timely given the rapid increase and focus on mobile medical applications (MMA), health information technology (HIT), clinical decision support (CDS) software, and various other types of HIT products.

Accordingly, manufacturers and related stakeholders should begin assessing current systems, processes, policies, and procedures to determine how FDA's Draft Guidance, if finalized, might affect their current approach to research and development, clinical studies, and/or marketing. Manufacturers and related stakeholders should particularly focus on current Quality Systems (QS) processes, policies, and procedures, including: (1) design controls (21 CFR 820.30); (2) document controls (21 CFR 820.40); and (3) production and process controls (21 CFR 820.70 et. seq.); and records (21 CFR 820.180 et. seq.). Manufacturers will also need to closely scrutinize third parties that may design, produce, or enhance parts or components of software to ensure that their documentation and processes enable the manufacturer to determine whether a new 510(k) may be required. Finally, manufacturers must also ensure that their medical device reporting procedures—and ongoing adverse device event surveillance activities—are designed to provide Regulatory and Quality functions the timely and complete information they may need to address labeling updates and design changes and effectuate FDA pre-market notification.

Regardless of whether a new 510(k) is required, FDA's Draft Guidance clarifies that manufacturers will need to document carefully all analyses and decisions associated with software changes. Such documentation underscores the need for all relevant functions within a manufacturer (e.g., R&D, medical, regulatory, legal, etc.) to communicate in a clear and coordinated manner regarding proposed or potential software changes to ensure that the questions and factors outlined in the Draft Guidance are properly addressed. Such changes can arise from a variety of places, including user beta testing, market research, or customer service complaints received after commercial release. While continuous improvements to software systems, such as operating system updates or bug correction are a common practice among technology companies, these changes can have regulatory significance, particularly where such changes modify the intended use of the underlying device or raise new questions about device safety or effectiveness.

Manufacturers should also pay particular attention to advertising and marketing claims about any new changes or updates to software in light of FDA's Draft Guidance. Specifically, advertising or promotional claims that suggest a FDA-cleared software program has undergone changes without a new 510(k) could result in additional scrutiny or enforcement from the agency, including a potential Warning Letter. FDA has signaled a recent increase in targeting software manufacturers in recent months, including a Warning Letter regarding an ADHD software program in November 2015. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is likely to scrutinize new or additional promotional claims that result from any software changes or updates that suggest improved patient or consumer outcomes without adequate substantiation. See e.g., FTC Settlement with Lumos Labs, Inc. (creators of Lumosity); FTC Settlement with LearningRx. Similarly, such changes are subject to close scrutiny by plaintiffs lawyers, who may view the failure of a company to timely update its labeling or design (or to notify FDA or consumers of such updates) as actionable.


1. For device modifications to address a violation or recall, FDA referred industry to the following agency guidance documents: (1) Blue Book Memorandum K95-1; (2) 510(k) Requirements During Firm-Initiated Recalls; and (3) Distinguishing Medical Device Recalls from Medical Device Enhancements. The Draft Guidance, when finalized, will apply to situations when a legally-marketed existing device is the subject of a recall and a change in the device or its labeling is indicated.

2. If the initial decision following the risk assessment is that a new 510(k) is not required, this decision should be confirmed by successful, routine verification and validation activities. If routine verification and validation activities produce any unexpected issues, any prior decision that a new 510(k) is not required should be reconsidered. Verification and validation requirements apply for all devices subject to 21 CFR 820.30.

3. For example, an intended operating system (OS) upgrade may trigger unintended effects in device drivers and software code embedded in the device.

4. The Draft Guidance adopts the concept of risk, as defined in ISO 14971: Medical devices, as "the combination of the probability of occurrence of harm and the severity of that harm." FDA explained that because "21 CFR 807.81(a)(3)(i) requires a new 510(k) when a change 'could significantly affect safety or effectiveness,' both safety and effectiveness should be considered in evaluating a device's risk profile."

5. FDA explained that if a manufacturer makes multiple changes to a device, but only one change triggers the requirement for a new 510(k), the changes that do not require a new 510(k) may be immediately implemented, so long as those changes can be implemented independently of changes that do require a new 510(k). However, those changes should be described in the new 510(k) for the change that does require submission.

6. We have included screen shots from the Draft Guidance of some of the examples used by FDA.

7. click here to view image

8. click here to view image

9. The manufacturer should also refer to FDA's Guidance on the Content of Premarket Submissions for Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices.

10. click here to view image

11. "Generally, manufacturers are not required to submit a new 510(k) for changes to a specification document for the purpose of clarifying an existing software requirement or to capture a missing software requirement, provided that this does not necessitate any changes to software code or product performance specifications. However, manufacturers should still assess the impact of the changes on other software documentation when applying appropriate design controls."

12. click here to view image

13. This criterion is met if the change creates a new cause or modifies an existing cause (such as increasing the likelihood) of an existing hazardous situation.

14. For the purposes of this criterion, the pre-mitigation risk score should be assessed in order to focus on the effects of the change.

15. This criterion is met if there are no existing risk control measures in the most recently cleared device that reduce the risk associated with this cause to an acceptable level.

16. click here to view image

17. click here to view image

18. This criterion is met if the change creates a new hazardous situation or modifies an existing hazardous situation (such as increasing the likelihood of such).

19. For the purposes of this criterion, the pre-mitigation risk score should be assessed in order to focus on the effects of the change.

20. This criterion is met if there are no existing risk control measures in the most recently cleared device that reduce the risk associated with this hazardous situation to an acceptable level.

21. click here to view image

22. click here to view image

23. click here to view image

24. click here to view image

25. click here to view image

26. click here to view image

27. FDA also explained that a complete rewrite of the algorithm, even with the same performance claims and risk profile, may be significant enough to require a new 510(k) because the rewrite may impact performance indirectly.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.