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​ 

April 18, 2025
On April 12, 2025, Thailand published an amendment to the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes in the Government Gazette, with the regulation taking effect the following day. Drafts of the amendment had been shared in recent months, and the final amendment of the decree contains some additional key revisions, such as narrowing the business operators subject to the decree’s requirements, reducing operators’ obligations, and establishing collaboration between relevant stakeholders to tackle technology crime. These key revisions to the amendment are detailed below. Business operators subject to the decree: The business operators covered under the decree now include only payment service providers under the Payment System Act and digital asset operators under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses. Digital platform services under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Businesses That Are Subject to Prior Notification are no longer within the scope of the decree. Definition of technology crime: The final version of the amendment removed the expanded definition of technology crime that had been included in a previous draft, leaving the decree’s existing definition unchanged. Telecommunications provider obligations: Mobile and telecommunications service providers now have an obligation to monitor and screen for content that may be related to technology crime and suspend SIM cards when instructed to do so by the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). Transaction and account suspension: The amendment removes the decree’s complex transaction suspension procedures and leaves room for business-specific regulators (e.g., Bank of Thailand, Securities and Exchange Commission, NBTC) to impose various technology crime suspension requirements on business operators under their supervision. The newly established Center for Prevention and Suppression of Technology Crimes can also notify financial institutions and business operators of names or digital asset wallet addresses that may be related to technology crime,
Read More
April 18, 2025
On April 12, 2025, Thailand issued an amended digital asset regulation that covers offshore digital asset businesses providing services on a cross-border basis to Thai users. These businesses will now be subject to the licensing requirements of the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Business Operations B.E. 2561 (2018), which is supervised by Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A digital asset business will be deemed as providing services in Thailand—and therefore subject to requirements under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Business Operations—if the business does any of the following: Displays content in Thai, either fully or partially; Is registered under a “.th,” or “.ไทย” domain, contains any name relating to Thailand, or uses a domain written in Thai characters; Allows or requires payments in Thai baht (THB) or receives payments through Thai bank accounts or e-wallets; Chooses Thai law to govern transactions or Thai courts to litigate any dispute; Pays online search engines to attract users in Thailand to its services; Has an office, establishment, or personnel in Thailand to support or assist users within the country; or Meets any other criteria specified by the SEC. To operate legally in Thailand, offshore operators meeting any of the above criteria will be required to incorporate a local company in Thailand in order to apply for a digital asset business license with the SEC.
Read More
April 11, 2025
Vietnam’s draft Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) continues to evolve, with significant implications for businesses operating in the region. The latest draft, released to the public in March 2025, contains several noteworthy changes from the previous draft that businesses with operations in Vietnam should be aware of when developing their data protection strategies and compliance frameworks. The draft PDPL will be submitted to the vote of the National Assembly in May 2025 with a tentative entry into force on January 1, 2026. Key Changes in the Latest Draft PDPL 1. Redefined Categories of Personal Data The draft PDPL has made important revisions to personal data classifications: Basic personal data: An individual’s image is no longer classified as basic personal data. Sensitive personal data: Bank account information has been removed from this classification (and is now considered basic personal data), but two new categories have been added: (i) salary, allowances, and other income sources, and (ii) information on land users and information on land containing such information. Organizations should review their data classification schemes and update protection measures accordingly, particularly for salary and compensation information. 2. Data Encryption Requirements The draft PDPL explicitly states that encrypted data remains classified as personal data. Additionally, it mandates that sensitive personal data must be encrypted when stored, transmitted, received, or shared in cyberspace. Organizations and individuals can freely opt for one or more encryption solutions and encryption/decryption processes suitable for their personal data management and administration activities. 3. Biometric Data Processing The latest draft PDPL adds new protection requirements for biometric data. Organizations processing biometric data (such as fingerprints) must: Implement physical security measures for devices storing and transmitting biometric data. Use strong encryption methods during transmission and storage. Restrict access to biometric data. Have early-detection monitoring systems to detect violations of biometric
Read More
April 10, 2025
After making revisions to the initial draft notification released in November 2024, Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released an updated draft Notification on Additional Obligations for Digital Platform Service Operators of Online Marketplaces for Goods with Specific Characteristics under Section 18(2) of the Royal Decree on the Operation of Digital Platform Service Businesses Subject to Prior Notification B.E. 2565 (2022) B.E. … . A focus group session was also held to gather feedback from business operators. Below is a summary of key provisions in the new draft. Unchanged Items Some key concerns that remain unchanged from the previous version of the draft notification include the following: Offshore business operators running online marketplaces that act as intermediaries for the sale or exchange of goods and provide facility services for the sale of goods (referred to as “specific marketplace operators” in the draft) are required to establish a local entity in Thailand. However, the criteria for determining which operators are specific marketplace operators are still under discussion due to feedback from business operators. Specific marketplace operators must submit a compliance report to the ETDA along with their annual report each year. Specific marketplace operators must verify that “business users” (e.g., merchants) provide complete details about goods in accordance with product standardization requirements. Removed Obligations The updated draft notification has removed specific marketplace operators’ obligations to: Conduct Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) verification of business users before onboarding them on their platforms. Submit a registry of business users’ information to the ETDA. Retain business users’ information for a specified retention period. Implement measures to filter reviews of products subject to specific standards. Revisions Key revisions made to the draft notification include the following: The effective date has been extended to 120 days after the notification’s publication in the Government Gazette,
Read More