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​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded