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​ 

February 20, 2025
Vietnam’s Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (Decree 147) was issued on November 9, 2024, and came into effect on December 25, 2024. Decree 147 represents a more stringently regulated digital landscape in Vietnam, creating challenges not only for offshore service providers offering cross-border services but also for onshore providers. As these new regulations impose stricter requirements, particularly in areas like content control, user authentication, data storage, and service license/notification, companies will need to adapt quickly to maintain compliance and minimize legal risks. The following are some of the key topics covered by Decree 147. [Note: Shortly after the issuance of Decree 147, Vietnam began a government restructuring process, with the aim of streamlining the government by consolidating and eliminating various ministries and agencies. Thus, the decree’s references to authorities such as the Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI) and the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) are subject to change.] 1. Cross-Border Information Provision Cross-border information provision is defined broadly as the provision by overseas organizations and individuals of information and online information content services for service users in Vietnam to access or use. This wide-ranging definition encompasses various types of cross-border services, including social network services, online game services, and app store services. However, cross-border provision of online game services remains prohibited under Decree 147 (see further details below). Offshore providers of services on a cross-border basis who lease data storage in Vietnam or meet a threshold of 100,000 or more total visits per month from Vietnam for six consecutive months (“regulated cross-border providers”) must adhere to stricter requirements. Specifically, they are required to, among other requirements: Notify the relevant authority of their contact information, including the location of the main server providing the service, within 60
February 17, 2025
Thailand’s draft Emergency Decree on Technology Crimes Suppression, which we covered in a client alert in January 2025 primarily addressed to telecom operators and financial institutions, is expected to have significant implications for a wide range of business operators.  The draft emergency decree has already been approved by the cabinet but may undergo further developments as it continues in the legislative process. In this article, we will highlight the material impacts of the draft emergency decree on overseas and local fintech operators. Expanded Definition of “Technology Crimes” The definition of “technology crimes” now includes the following acts of forgery or alteration: Forging or altering the identity of individuals and biometric characteristics by utilizing computer or communication systems or other electronic means to commit offenses. Forging or altering symbols, trademarks, or seals of groups (e.g., foundations, community enterprises) or juristic persons, including acts by juristic persons using individuals or juristic persons as nominal directors or shareholders, regardless of whether such individuals or legal juristic persons reside in Thailand. Forging or altering digital or online platforms, regardless of the platform’s location or legal status. Individuals who conspire, utilize, assist, or support the commission of these offenses will face the same penalties as the principal offender. Business Operator Definition The scope of “business operators” is now expanded to cover various fintech and digital asset operators beyond those under the Payment Systems Act (PSA). The draft emergency decree now includes the following operators, whether they are legally authorized or not: Business operators under the PSA and business operators who operate “as if” they are payment system operators Business operators under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses or business operators who operate “as if” they are digital asset business operators. Foreign exchange business operators. Disclosure and Exchange of Information Business operators must disclose
February 7, 2025
Vietnam’s political system is currently undergoing a significant reorganization to streamline government operations and improve efficiency. In this regard, Plan 141/KH-BCDTKNQ18, issued on December 6, 2024, provided guidelines on the restructuring of existing ministries, ministerial-level agencies, and government-affiliated agencies. Accordingly, the number of ministries is being reduced from 18 to 14 through mergers and consolidations and the establishment of a new Ministry of Ethnic and Religious Affairs. The number of ministerial-level agencies is being reduced to three, and government-affiliated agencies to five. Similar streamlining is happening at provincial levels. The newly consolidated state agencies will assume all functions, rights, and responsibilities of the merged entities, and will continue handling all ongoing matters previously handled by the former agencies. Some examples of these changes include the following: The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) will oversee telecommunications, IT applications, cybersecurity, e-transactions, and national digital transformation, which had previously been managed by the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC). MOST will also be responsible for issuing licenses related to these areas, such as licenses for G1 online game services and telecommunication services. The Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism will assume the responsibility of press management, previously under the MIC. The Ministry of Finance will assume state management functions related to investment, previously handled by the Ministry of Planning and Investment. Provincial Departments of Finance will issue Investment Registration Certificates and Enterprise Registration Certificates, a responsibility previously held by the Departments of Planning and Investment. The Ministry of Home Affairs will oversee labor and employment matters. Provincial Departments of Home Affairs will be authorized to issue work permits and will be the designated authorities for companies to register their internal labor regulations. Advantages for Businesses The restructuring aims to simplify regulations and expedite licensing processes. By reducing the number of agencies
February 6, 2025
The Thai government has proposed amendments to the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935), aiming to address the growing influence of online gambling activities and strengthen regulatory oversight. These amendments, if enacted, would introduce significant changes, particularly concerning online gambling operators, participants, and related advertising activities. The draft amendment is currently in the public hearing process, which is scheduled to conclude on February 14, 2025. Key highlights of the proposed amendments are discussed below. Online Gambling In the proposed amendment, “online gambling” refers to gambling via a computer system or electronic system either through the internet or through remote communication. Organizing, participating in, or engaging in any type of online gambling is prohibited unless authorized by the competent authority. This opens the door for the authorization of casino-style online gambling in Thailand. However, the proposed amendment also imposes strict penalties on both operators and gamblers engaging in unauthorized online gambling: Anyone who organizes unauthorized online gambling is subject to imprisonment for 7–12 years. This penalty also applies to those responsible for managing electronic systems or tools used to facilitate gambling, as well as anyone involved in advertising, promoting, or deceiving others, either directly or indirectly, to engage in online gambling without proper authorization. Any person who engages in unauthorized online gambling is subject to imprisonment for 1–3 years. Dealers, supervisors of gambling or gambling activities, runners conveying wagers or other betting information, and owners of premises who knowingly permit such unauthorized activities are subject to imprisonment for 5–7 years. Penalties for Unauthorized Offline Gambling Operators The proposed amendment revokes the previous penalties under the Gambling Act and proposes stronger penalties. Both the original penalties and the proposed replacements depend on the type of gambling activity under the law, which classifies gambling activities into two types—list A and list B. List