Quantum Internet poses new challenges for global legal systems

By Gaurav Sahay

For much of its early conception, the quantum Internet remained within the realm of theoretical physics. The idea was primarily academic, explored in scientific circles and research institutions, with limited real-world relevance or policy attention. However, in recent years, the narrative has shifted dramatically.

Today, governments, multinational corporations, and academic consortia have begun making concrete advancements in quantum networking technologies, including successful experiments in Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), satellite-based quantum communication, and the establishment of urban quantum communication testbeds. These developments are not merely scientific; they represent an emerging communications infrastructure with profound socio-legal and geopolitical implications.

As the transition from theory to application of Quantum Internet technology becomes increasingly urgent, the implications for law and regulation are becoming increasingly pressing. Unlike the classical Internet, which is governed by a combination of domestic statutes and international agreements, quantum communication challenges many foundational assumptions in existing legal frameworks.

In fact, data sovereignty laws, which dictate that personal and sensitive data be stored or processed within national borders, may become increasingly difficult to enforce when quantum entanglement permits instantaneous state changes between nodes in different jurisdictions without transferring classical data in a traceable manner.

Quantum Internet Challenges Legal Borders

Quantum networks have necessitated the re-evaluation of international cooperation treaties and cross-border data transfer protocols. The inherently borderless nature of entangled networks and the impossibility of traditional interception could frustrate cooperation between states, particularly in cases involving intelligence sharing or criminal investigation.

From a digital infrastructure governance perspective, the rollout of quantum networks also raises new issues around public-private partnerships, control over core communication assets, standardisation of quantum protocols, and national security protections. The question of who builds, owns, and regulates this next-generation infrastructure will have far-reaching legal consequences, potentially reshaping existing telecom laws, spectrum allocation policies, and digital sovereignty doctrines.

The rise of the quantum Internet is not merely a technical evolution; it is a legal inflexion point that will compel lawmakers, regulators, and judicial bodies to reconsider core assumptions about security, sovereignty, and control in the digital age. Foundational technologies underpinning the quantum Internet have now moved well beyond theoretical projections and academic discourse.

Quantum networks have necessitated the re-evaluation of international cooperation treaties and cross-border data transfer protocols.

Demonstrable advances mark a transformative moment in digital infrastructure, a move toward a communication architecture underpinned by the principles of quantum mechanics, promising security by physical law rather than computational complexity. Data jurisdiction becomes increasingly complex in quantum networks, where information may not “travel” in the conventional sense but instead be transmitted via entangled states across national borders.

The challenges arise from the fact that traditional legal notions of data localisation and territorial control are foundational to many national data protection laws. These laws often rely on the physical or digital location of data to determine the applicable legal framework, an assumption that quantum entanglement disrupts.

Quantum Encryption Defies Legal Interception

An emerging legal flashpoint in the deployment of quantum communication technologies is the question of cross-border encryption control and regulation. In the conventional digital paradigm, encryption technologies are already subject to intense legal scrutiny, especially in jurisdictions that prioritise national security, public safety, and lawful surveillance. Countries either mandate the retention of decryption capabilities by telecom operators or require service providers to furnish decrypted data upon request by competent legal authorities. These regimes are often supported by legal instruments that allow state agencies to intercept and access encrypted communications under judicial or executive orders.

However, quantum encryption, particularly when realised through QKD, challenges the very foundation of these legal regimes. QKD relies on the laws of quantum mechanics to generate encryption keys in a manner that is not only computationally unbreakable but also physically tamper-evident. Any attempt to intercept or observe the quantum channel causes an irreversible collapse of the quantum state, alerting both sender and receiver to the intrusion.

Importantly, unlike classical encryption systems, where decryption keys are mathematically generated and stored, QKD keys are generated in real-time and used once, leaving no residual cryptographic material that can be produced or handed over under a lawful order. This makes it impossible for network operators to comply with existing interception mandates that require decryption on demand.

This technical reality introduces serious legal tensions. Statutes that obligate telecom license holders or Internet service providers to implement “lawful interception” become practically unenforceable in quantum communication contexts.

Given these developments, national governments and international regulatory bodies may be compelled to revisit and reformulate their encryption control laws to accommodate the limitations and safeguards inherent in quantum cryptography. Possible legal strategies include the creation of quantum-specific regulatory carve-outs, the establishment of state-supervised quantum key infrastructure (QKI) models, or the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements that recognise the operational constraints of quantum-secure networks while preserving avenues for lawful cooperation in criminal and national security matters.

These solutions will require extensive collaboration among technologists, legal scholars, intelligence agencies, and international law experts to ensure that legal frameworks neither unduly stifle quantum innovation nor create unmanageable enforcement vacuums.

In the absence of such reforms, quantum encryption could inadvertently place legitimate service providers in a position of legal non-compliance, or worse, push state authorities toward legislative overreach, such as blanket bans on quantum encryption or forced infrastructure localisation—moves that could fracture the global digital ecosystem and create new arenas for techno-legal conflict.

Regulating Infrastructure in a Quantum Future

The issue of ownership and control over quantum communication infrastructure introduces a complex and unprecedented dimension to legal and regulatory governance. As countries and corporations progress toward the real-world deployment of the quantum Internet, questions surrounding the classification, regulation, and oversight of its physical and logical components are becoming critical. Lawmakers are thus faced with the urgent task of determining whether such assets should be treated as public utilities, national critical infrastructure, regulated monopolies, or privately held commercial technology.

This legal ambiguity is reminiscent of the regulatory dilemmas that accompanied the liberalisation and privatisation of telecom networks in the late 20th century, and later, the emergence of cloud computing. With quantum communication infrastructure, the stakes are arguably higher. Given its potential role in securing military-grade communications, it is likely to attract the same regulatory scrutiny as nuclear technologies, defence communications systems, or high-grade cryptographic hardware. Accordingly, legal frameworks may need to address a broad range of regulatory controls and restrictions. These may include foreign direct investment (FDI) restrictions, particularly in jurisdictions that maintain sectoral caps or screening mechanisms for strategic technologies.

The inherently borderless nature of entangled networks and the impossibility of traditional interception could frustrate cooperation between states.

The absence of harmonised international legal standards or treaty-based governance mechanisms for quantum infrastructure exacerbates these challenges. In a globally interconnected Internet ecosystem, the lack of standardisation can lead to fragmented legal regimes, creating barriers to cross-border compatibility, infrastructure integration, and global scaling. Such an outcome would not only hinder the promise of a truly global quantum Internet but also pose risks of regulatory arbitrage, where actors exploit inconsistencies between jurisdictions to bypass stringent controls.

In essence, while the technical underpinnings of the quantum Internet have evolved rapidly, the legal ecosystem must now urgently catch up to ensure that emerging deployments comply with and are protected by coherent and enforceable laws. As the world inches closer to the operationalisation of quantum networks, regulators, lawmakers, and legal advisors must step into the conversation.

The transition to quantum-secure communications cannot be managed purely by scientists or engineers. It requires a proactive legal strategy, comprising international treaties, updated data protection laws, export controls, and cybersecurity regulations, that evolves in parallel with the technology. As the quantum Internet transitions from theory to reality, its legal architecture remains dangerously underdeveloped.

Going ahead, the global readiness will depend not only on technological capability but also on how well the legal community anticipates and addresses the disruptive potential of quantum communication. Nations, institutions, and enterprises must begin laying the groundwork now, ensuring that the rule of law evolves in tandem with the next generation of global connectivity.

The author is the Founder Partner of Arthashastra Legal.