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 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
July 6, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Data Protection & Privacy 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into data protection and privacy regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s data protection framework, addressing both regulatory structure and practical compliance considerations for businesses operating in or engaging with Vietnam. Topics covered include: Law and the regulatory authority: Legislative framework; data protection authority; cooperation with other data protection authorities; breaches of data protection law; judicial review of data protection authority orders Scope: Exempt sectors and institutions; interception of communications and surveillance laws; other laws; personal information formats; extraterritoriality; covered uses of personal information Legitimate processing of personal information: Lawful bases for processing; grounds for legitimate processing; types of personal information Data handling responsibilities of owners of personal information: Transparency; exemptions from transparency obligations; data accuracy; data minimization; data retention; purpose limitation; automated decision-making Security: Security obligations; notification of data breaches; internal controls Accountability: Data protection officer requirements; record-keeping; risk assessment; design of personal information processing systems Registration and notification: Registration requirements; other transparency duties Sharing and cross-border transfers of personal information: Sharing with processors and service providers; restrictions on third-party disclosures; cross-border transfers; further transfers; localization requirements Rights of individuals: Right of access; other statutory rights; compensation Enforcement: Enforcement mechanisms; exemptions, derogations, and restrictions; further exemptions and restrictions Specific data processing: Cookies and similar technologies; electronic communications marketing; targeted advertising; sensitive personal information; profiling; cloud services The chapter concludes with an update on key legal and regulatory developments over the past year and emerging trends in Vietnam’s data protection landscape. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Data
Read More
July 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible
Read More
June 25, 2026
On June 18, 2026, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published two notifications in the Government Gazette establishing Thailand’s first formal certification framework for personal data protection standards under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notifications, which took immediate effect, introduce a voluntary certification framework aimed at promoting accountability, strengthening organizational data protection governance, and aligning Thailand more closely with international frameworks that recognize certification as a key compliance tool. Certification Criteria The first notification sets out the assessment criteria for organizations seeking certification. Applicants must undergo an evaluation against a framework comprising four assessment categories, 10 focus areas, and 128 assessment criteria covering key elements of a privacy management program. These include: Organizational oversight and internal policies and procedures. Human resource development, including staff training and awareness programs. Clearly defined operational processes and procedures covering data subject rights, transparency obligations, records of processing activities, and lawful basis management, as well as contractual safeguards such as data-processing and data-sharing agreements and risk assessments, including Data Protection Impact Assessments. Technical measures encompassing data security controls and breach response capabilities Based on the assessment results, organizations may be awarded either a PDPA Compliance Certificate or a higher-level PDPA Certificate accompanied by a certification mark. Application and Assessment Process The second notification establishes the application and assessment process for obtaining certification. Eligible applicants include government agencies and private-sector entities that demonstrate sufficient privacy governance maturity and meet the prescribed eligibility requirements. Applicants must submit their applications along with supporting documentation for review. Upon receiving an application, the Office of the PDPC will conduct a detailed evaluation, which may include both documentary review and on-site inspections. Incomplete applications may be rejected, though applicants are typically given a limited period to correct deficiencies before a final decision
Read More