Mauritius - Tier C · Contained · Question to the Financial Services Commission and the data protection authority
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2026 8:01 am
Fijishi Jurisdiction Index 2026 · Entry MU · Published 12 October 2026
At a glance
1. The rules in Mauritius
The Financial Services Commission issued Principles for the Responsible Use of AI in Financial Services in September 2025, addressed to the insurance, wealth management and non-bank sectors. It calls them non-binding and states no supervisory follow-up.
The same guidance states that, under section 38 of the Data Protection Act 2017, licensees are required to inform people of automated decision-making and to allow them to obtain human intervention and contest the outcome.
Who these rules reach
This band describes how far the published record answers the question put to the Financial Services Commission and the data protection authority. It is not a finding that either authority, or any firm it oversees, has fallen short of any rule.
Why the question goes to the Financial Services Commission and the data protection authority: No Mauritius-licensed insurer's own published account of AI in underwriting, claims or pricing was found, so the question goes to the authorities.
The question
3. What the open question means for firms in Mauritius
Until the authorities answer, an insurer in Mauritius whose AI system decides a person's cover or claim has no published statement on whether the Commission or the data protection authority checks the section 38 safeguards. This entry gives no band to any firm.
4. What this entry does not establish
Sources
None share a law or regulator with this entry.
________________________________________
Commercial relationship with any party named here: None · Right of reply: indexreport.protocol@fijishi.com; with the sender's agreement, replies are published in full below the entry, dated · Cite as: Fijishi Jurisdiction Index 2026, Entry MU · Corrections: none.
At a glance
| Jurisdiction tier | Tier C - Specified, not yet enforced. AI is specified as for Tier A, but no mechanism to check firms against it is stated. |
| Question to | the Financial Services Commission and the data protection authority - safeguards for automated insurance decisions |
| Band for this question | Contained |
| Rules reach | Insurers: directly · Reinsurers: not stated · Intermediaries: not stated |
| Last verified | [actual date of the launch-window check] |
The Financial Services Commission issued Principles for the Responsible Use of AI in Financial Services in September 2025, addressed to the insurance, wealth management and non-bank sectors. It calls them non-binding and states no supervisory follow-up.
The same guidance states that, under section 38 of the Data Protection Act 2017, licensees are required to inform people of automated decision-making and to allow them to obtain human intervention and contest the outcome.
Who these rules reach
- Insurers: directly, as the insurance sector to which the Commission's guidance is addressed. The guidance calls its principles "nine (9) key and non-binding principles".
- Reinsurers: not stated.
- Intermediaries: not stated.
This band describes how far the published record answers the question put to the Financial Services Commission and the data protection authority. It is not a finding that either authority, or any firm it oversees, has fallen short of any rule.
Why the question goes to the Financial Services Commission and the data protection authority: No Mauritius-licensed insurer's own published account of AI in underwriting, claims or pricing was found, so the question goes to the authorities.
The question
In briefIn September 2025 the Financial Services Commission, Mauritius, issued Principles for the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Financial Services, addressed to the insurance, wealth management and non-bank sectors it regulates. It describes them as "nine (9) key and non-binding principles", and says it will continue to monitor developments in AI and revisit its guidance where necessary. The same guidance states that, under section 38 of the Data Protection Act 2017, licensees are required to inform people of automated decision-making, give meaningful information about its logic, and allow them to obtain human intervention and contest the outcome. When an insurer's AI system decides on a person's cover or claim, which authority checks that those safeguards were provided: the FSC, as the insurer's regulator applying its own guidance, or the authority that enforces the Data Protection Act?
Why this band: No company's own account could be tested, so the question rests on the regulator's own guidance.Mauritius's financial regulator has issued AI principles that apply to insurers. It calls them non-binding, but it restates the data protection law's safeguards for automated decisions as requirements. The guidance does not say whether the regulator itself checks those safeguards in insurers' AI decisions. We found no regulator or company publication documenting AI use in underwriting, claims or pricing in Mauritius.
3. What the open question means for firms in Mauritius
Until the authorities answer, an insurer in Mauritius whose AI system decides a person's cover or claim has no published statement on whether the Commission or the data protection authority checks the section 38 safeguards. This entry gives no band to any firm.
4. What this entry does not establish
- Section 38 of the Data Protection Act 2017 was not read; the Commission's restatement of it is used.
- The Commission's 2021 rules for AI-driven advisory licensees were not read; they apply to a different kind of licence.
- No Mauritius-licensed reinsurer could be identified for this edition.
- No date set: any Commission circular making the principles binding or stating supervisory follow-up.
Sources
- Financial Services Commission, Mauritius, Fintech Series Guidance Notes 4: Principles for the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Financial Services, September 2025 (printed). Regulator. fscmauritius.org PDF
- Financial Services Commission, FinTech licensing page (undated; observed 28 September 2026). Regulator. fscmauritius.org
None share a law or regulator with this entry.
________________________________________
Commercial relationship with any party named here: None · Right of reply: indexreport.protocol@fijishi.com; with the sender's agreement, replies are published in full below the entry, dated · Cite as: Fijishi Jurisdiction Index 2026, Entry MU · Corrections: none.