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

December 3, 2025

Thailand Civil Court Issues Rules on AI-Generated Court Filings

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Civil Court has issued a regulation targeting the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of pleadings and other documents submitted to the court. Effective November 17, 2025, the regulation aligns with September 2025 guidance from the president of the Supreme Court, and aims to safeguard accuracy, transparency, and public confidence in civil adjudication.

The regulation applies to all parties submitting pleadings or any documents to the Civil Court that are prepared using AI tools or contain AI-generated content. It subjects AI used for these purposes to strict requirements on verification, disclosure, and accountability.

Core Obligations

The regulation imposes four principal obligations:

  • Lawyers who use AI remain subject to duties of honesty, responsibility to the court, professional standards, and legal ethics, including the duty to assess the appropriateness of the AI tool for the work.
  • Parties and lawyers must verify the accuracy and completeness of all facts, legal provisions, and citations in AI-generated content before submission.
  • Parties and lawyers must disclose to the court any AI-generated content by clearly marking the beginning and end of the AI-generated portion with prescribed statements (see below). Additionally, a certification confirming the use of AI must be provided at the end of the pleading or document, stating that AI was used for certain portions and that the party has reviewed and certifies the accuracy of factual and legal content.
  • Parties and lawyers bear the same full legal and ethical responsibility for AI-generated content as they do for personally authored documents; they cannot evade responsibility or avoid liability by citing AI-related errors. Likewise, parties must ensure that any AI-generated content is truthful, accurate, and unbiased.

Prescribed Disclosure Language

Each instance of AI-generated content must be preceded by the statement “[The following content was prepared using artificial intelligence]” and must end with “[End of content prepared using artificial intelligence].”

In addition, any filing that includes AI-generated content must include the following certification at the end of the document: “Certain portions of this [type of document] were prepared using artificial intelligence. I have reviewed and certify the accuracy of the facts and the law prior to submission to the court.”

Enforcement and Compliance Considerations

Noncompliance may be reported by a court officer or judge to superiors for further orders and may constitute disorderly conduct within court precincts under the Civil Procedure Code. In practical terms, counsel should anticipate potential adverse procedural measures, reputational consequences, and other court-ordered remedies for violations.

It is important for lawyers to implement AI-use protocols that align with the regulation’s requirements. This includes selecting AI tools solely as aids to human drafting, ensuring that every AI-generated output undergoes thorough human review for accuracy of facts, laws, and citations, inserting the exact disclosure statements around each AI-generated section, and adding the mandated end-of-document certification.

Lawyers must also apply litigation quality controls—such as primary-source verification, adversarial checks for hallucinations or bias, and chronological and citation audits—before filing. For mixed-origin documents, lawyers must maintain internal versions that identify which sections are AI-assisted to avoid disclosure gaps.

Finally, firms must update professional responsibility guidance and training to reinforce that lawyers remain wholly accountable for AI-assisted content.

Key Takeaways

The Civil Court’s regulation recognizes the legitimate role of AI in modern litigation while requiring human oversight, explicit transparency, and uncompromised professional responsibility. Legal practitioners and parties may continue leveraging AI’s efficiencies, provided they embed rigorous review processes and the mandated disclosures into the filing workflows.

The regulation is also the latest in a broader effort by the Thai courts to address the implications of AI use across the judiciary. Aside from the regulation, the president of the Supreme Court also issued guidance in September 2025 promoting ethical and cautious use of AI technologies in court operations.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 17, 2025
On July 9, 2025, Thailand issued a notification that introduces comprehensive operational requirements for digital platform service providers operating as goods marketplaces, effective December 31, 2025 (i.e., 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette). The regulation’s official name is Notification of the Electronic Transactions Committee Re: Other Actions for Digital Platform Service Operators in the Category of Marketplace for Goods with Specific Characteristics under Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses that are Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022), B.E. 2568 (2025). Scope of Application The notification applies exclusively to goods marketplace operators formally designated by the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA), which on the same day designated 19 platforms that had previously notified the ETDA of their operations. The goods requiring enhanced oversight by these operators are limited to those regulated by the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI). Development from Earlier Draft An earlier draft of the notification had included a requirement for offshore platforms to establish a local entity, but this requirement was removed from the final notification. Key Obligations Despite the removal of the local entity requirement, the notification imposes a range of additional obligations on designated goods marketplace operators: Transparency. Operators must implement robust transparency measures, including clear, accessible, and understandable disclosures to users in Thai. These disclosures must cover all relevant terms and conditions, comprehensive product information, and complaint management procedures. Operators must also submit an annual compliance report to the ETDA within 60 days after the end of their accounting period, including statistics on regulated goods. Business user registration and identity verification. Before permitting the sale or advertisement of regulated goods, operators must collect and verify business user information, including contact details, identification documents, registration
Read More
July 15, 2025
Thailand has established new safe harbor rules that require social media platforms to remove specified content within 24 hours of government notification. On July 5, 2025, the Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers was issued and took effect. This followed a hearing in May 2025 where only a select group of social media and online communication platform operators were invited to attend and comment on draft rules that could exempt social media platform operators from joint liability under the amended Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in cases involving victims of technological crimes. Safe Harbor Rules The notification stipulates procedures that must be followed in order to receive the protection of the safe harbor rules. Upon being notified by the Division of Prevention and Suppression of Cybercrime, Office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) of the presence of false or misleading information that may lead to the commission of a technological crime, social media service providers must immediately take down the specified content, with a maximum allowable turnaround time of 24 hours from the time of receiving the notification. Social media service providers are required to promptly report the outcome of each takedown to the MDES Division of Prevention and Suppression. This shift in Thailand’s regulatory approach to social media content moderation establishes clear government oversight mechanisms while providing platforms with liability protection for compliance. As the new rules took immediate effect, social media platforms need to ensure that they have adequate systems and processes in place to comply with the requirements.
Read More
July 11, 2025
Vietnam’s recent embrace of “regulatory sandboxes” reflects a deliberate policy choice to balance the need for robust oversight with an equally pressing imperative to catalyze innovation. A sandbox is a controlled, time-bound framework in which businesses may pilot emerging technologies, products, or business models under relaxed or tailor-made regulatory requirements, thereby allowing regulators to observe risks in real time while innovators validate commercial viability without bearing the full weight of the traditional compliance regime. By issuing sandbox regulations, the government of Vietnam is signaling its commitment to accelerating digital transformation, attracting investment, and developing a knowledge-based economy, all while safeguarding financial stability, consumer protection, and national security. This strategy is embodied in a suite of instruments that together establish sector-specific sandboxes: Decree No. 94/2025/ND-CP on the Regulatory Sandbox in the Banking Sector (Fintech Sandbox Decree), effective July 1, 2025. Law on Digital Technology Industry (DTI Law), effective January 1, 2026, and Law on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI Law), effective October 1, 2025. Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 on International Financial Centers (IFC Resolution), effective September 1, 2025. In addition, a draft resolution on the pilot implementation of the crypto-asset market (Draft Crypto Pilot Resolution) is expected to introduce a dedicated sandbox for crypto-asset service providers later this year, further underscoring Vietnam’s holistic, forward-looking approach to regulating emerging technologies. Below is a brief summary of all the regulatory sandboxes, who they are open for, and what businesses are attracted. Fintech Sandbox Decree Under the Fintech Sandbox Decree, besides credit institutions and foreign bank branches, fintech companies operating in Vietnam can apply for a Certificate of Sandbox Participation issued by the State Bank of Vietnam to operate any of the following services in Vietnam: Credit scoring: A solution applicable to information technology systems of credit institutions, branches of foreign banks, and fintech
Read More
July 11, 2025
On June 10, 2025, Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court accepted for consideration a pivotal lawsuit concerning the regulatory obligations of administrative agencies over internet-based television broadcasting services, commonly referred to as over-the-top (OTT) services. This court’s decision in the case may set important precedents for how OTT platforms are regulated, especially regarding consumer protections and advertising practices. Background A user of an OTT television application initiated legal action against the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) and related officials, alleging that the lack of clear regulatory criteria and oversight allowed OTT operators to broadcast general television content while compelling users to view advertisements before and during programming. The plaintiff argued this constituted consumer exploitation and claimed that the responsible authorities neglected or delayed their statutory duties under the Act on the Organization to Assign Radio Frequencies and Regulate Broadcasting, Television, and Telecommunications Services B.E. 2553 (2010). Initially, the Central Administrative Court declined to accept the lawsuit. However, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court determined that the claim fell within its jurisdiction, noting that OTT television services—defined under section 4 of the governing act—are subject to the same regulatory framework as traditional television services, regardless of the transmission method (frequency, cable, internet, or other system). Implications for OTT Services The key implications for OTT services concern the following issues: Regulatory oversight: The court recognized that OTT television services are explicitly covered under Thailand’s broadcast regulatory regime. Regulatory agencies may be compelled to establish clear operational rules and oversight mechanisms for OTT providers. Consumer protections: The plaintiff’s claim that excessive or unavoidable in-program advertising constitutes consumer exploitation was acknowledged as a matter of public interest. This may prompt stricter advertising standards for OTT platforms. Licensing requirements: The case raises the prospect that OTT operators may be required to obtain licenses from the
Read More