You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 25, 2025

Setting the Ground Rules: The Importance of Implementing Internal GenAI Policies

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is no longer a distant innovation confined to science fiction and research labs; it has become an integral part of daily business operations worldwide. Employees across industries are adopting GenAI tools at a remarkable pace—including in Southeast Asia, where a tech-savvy workforce and widespread internet and mobile access have driven early adoption.

The reality facing organizations today is clear: employees are integrating GenAI into their daily work, often without official approval or clear policies. This phenomenon, often called “Bring Your Own AI,” comes out of a disconnect between organizational governance and employee behavior and reveals the urgent need for proactive AI policies and oversight.

For business leaders and legal teams, GenAI is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, these tools can deliver real business value and boost efficiency. On the other, the unsanctioned and unmonitored use of GenAI introduces substantial legal risks, such as data privacy violations, confidentiality breaches, and intellectual property issues.

The widespread adoption of GenAI tools by employees, regardless of official organizational stance or guidelines, demonstrates that prohibition is neither practical nor effective. A more strategic approach involves establishing comprehensive governance policies that encourage responsible AI use while managing the risks.

Organizations that take the lead in developing GenAI governance policies are better positioned to benefit from its transformative potential. The question isn’t whether GenAI will change how we work, but how quickly organizations can put the right safeguards in place to manage this change successfully.

Risks of GenAI Use

The use of GenAI in business operations, whether sanctioned or not, exposes organizations to a unique set of risks. The following are particularly relevant:

  • Data security and confidentiality: General GenAI tools in the market may transmit data to external servers, retain conversation histories, and use inputs for model training. Further, employees may share confidential organization or client information without realizing the implications, increasing the risk of unintentional data leakage and unauthorized disclosure—especially since it can be difficult for organizations to know which GenAI tools employees are using and what types of information they are sharing.
  • Data protection and regulatory compliance: The evolving legal landscape regulating AI creates compliance challenges across multiple jurisdictions. Organizations must navigate complex data protection laws like Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Decree (PDPD), each with different compliance requirements. In the absence of AI-specific legislation, sector-specific regulations also add additional complexity, while unclear regulatory guidance often leaves organizations operating in legal uncertainty, particularly when using AI for decision-making that impacts individuals or when deploying AI systems that interact directly with customers.
  • Intellectual property risks: AI-generated content raises yet-to-be-answered questions about ownership, originality, and copyright infringement. Additionally, proprietary information shared with GenAI tools can be inadvertently incorporated into model training data, potentially compromising trade secrets or violating confidentiality agreements.
  • Governance and accountability: Disjointed and unregulated or inadequately governed GenAI adoption creates oversight gaps, making it difficult to track usage, assign responsibility for outputs, or respond to incidents. In addition, traditional approval processes may not account for AI-assisted work, creating quality control issues.

Developing an Internal GenAI Policy

Forward-thinking organizations across Southeast Asia are establishing internal policies that provide clear direction for both approved and unapproved AI use. These policies form the cornerstone of responsible AI adoption in these organizations by balancing innovation with effective risk management.

An effective AI policy functions as both a protective framework and an enablement tool. Rather than simply listing restrictions, the most effective policies provide practical guidance that empowers employees to leverage AI capabilities while maintaining organizational standards. This approach requires addressing several critical components when developing an AI policy, including, among others:

  • Policy scope: Effective AI policies begin with a clear articulation of their purpose, defining exactly which AI tools and use cases are governed by the policy, including distinguishing between enterprise-approved solutions and general AI tools in the market.
  • Access and authorization: Organizations should define user tiers and access levels, specifying which roles are permitted to use specific AI tools and under what circumstances. This includes establishing approval processes for new AI tool adoption and creating exceptions for specialized use cases.
  • Data governance and privacy protection: As GenAI tools may process personal information, policies must establish strict protocols for data handling. This encompasses defining what types of data can be shared with AI systems and ensuring compliance with regional privacy regulations such as Thailand’s PDPA or Vietnam’s PDPD.
  • Accountability and verification: Policies should also assign internal accountability for AI-generated content and outputs. It is important to establish appropriate review protocols based on the type of AI-assisted work, along with guidelines for transparently disclosing when and how AI was used, especially in client-facing materials or critical decision-making, which may require human validation.
  • Monitoring and incident response: Effective policies establish clear procedures for tracking AI usage, identifying potential misuse or unacceptable output, and responding to security incidents, policy violations, and AI-related incidents such as hallucinations or biased outputs. This includes defining escalation procedures and reporting mechanisms.
  • Vendor management: As organizations increasingly rely on third-party AI services, policies must address vendor evaluation criteria, contract requirements, and ongoing performance monitoring to ensure external AI providers meet legal obligations, data protection requirements, and operational expectations related to security, accountability, and transparency.

Given the rapid pace of AI development, policies should include review cycles, update mechanisms, and processes for incorporating new regulatory requirements or technological capabilities. They should also provide a framework for assessing emerging technologies and adapting policy coverage to reflect evolving risks and capabilities.

Finally, organizations should hold comprehensive education and training sessions to ensure that employees understand both the capabilities and limitations of AI tools, recognize potential risks, and follow organizational policies when using AI in their work.

Proactive Implementation

The GenAI revolution isn’t waiting for businesses to catch up—it’s already here, integrated into daily workflows. Organizations can either proactively implement robust governance frameworks to safely harness AI’s immense potential or risk falling behind in an increasingly complex and fast-moving landscape.

By establishing clear guidelines, accountability structures, and effective risk management protocols, organizations can confidently leverage AI capabilities to encourage innovation while maintaining oversight and minimizing risks. This approach not only builds stakeholder trust and ensures regulatory compliance but also encourages greater AI adoption and transparency among employees. With well-designed guardrails in place, employees can confidently and responsibly integrate GenAI into their work.

Ultimately, organizations that strike the right balance between innovation and responsibility will be best positioned to lead in the GenAI era.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require