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​ 

October 8, 2024
On October 1, 2024, the Thai cabinet acknowledged the recommendations proposed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to prevent corruption related to online gambling. The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) has been assigned as the lead agency to collaborate with various relevant agencies to reach a consensus on the necessary amendments and updates to laws related to online gambling. In assigning the MDES this role, the cabinet emphasized the importance of the following key items: Establishment of a national committee. The national committee will be chaired by a minister and will comprise relevant agencies, including policymaking bodies, technology agencies, frequency management agencies, law enforcement agencies, and other experts. The committee’s primary responsibility will be to consider amending and updating laws related to online gambling. Urgent action on online gambling. As online gambling has been deemed a serious issue requiring urgent action, joint policies will be developed among relevant agencies such as the Royal Thai Police, the Bank of Thailand, and the Anti-Money Laundering Office to elevate the importance of online gambling issues. Public awareness and law enforcement. Public awareness campaigns are to be conducted to educate the public about the risks and legal consequences of online gambling, and laws against online gambling and related financial crimes are to be strictly enforced. Compliance with the Cybersecurity Act. It is necessary to ensure strict compliance with the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019). At the same time, government data systems are to be moved to cloud computing for enhanced data security. Next Steps The MDES is tasked with summarizing the results of the related discussions, actions taken, and overall opinions and submitting the summary to the cabinet secretariat for further presentation to the cabinet. These measures aim to address and mitigate the risks associated with online gambling and related corruption.
Read More
October 8, 2024
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) issued guidelines for managing advertisements on digital platform services (DPSs) earlier this year. These guidelines aim to prevent fraud, illegal product or service offerings, and inducements to commit illegal acts, and are likely to provide a basis for greater regulation of this issue in the future. Key obligations for DPS business operators under the guidelines are detailed below. Advertiser Screening and Data Collection Verification and collection: Business operators must establish processes for verifying and collecting advertiser data. This includes steps, methods, and required information for advertiser registration. Identity verification: Business operators should follow identity verification requirements for advertiser registration. This may include using identity verification results from other identity providers or conducting their own identity verification processes with a minimum identity assurance level (IAL) of IAL2. Data storage: Advertiser data must be stored in a machine-readable format. Business operators must maintain records for watchlists, blacklists, and whitelists. Prepublication Advertisement Review Review process: Business operators should review advertisements before publication. This review should consider factors such as prohibited or restricted advertisements, required permissions, and avoiding sensitive user data. Postpublication Monitoring Advertisement monitoring: Business operators must monitor published advertisements using automated systems, staff, or contracted personnel. Criteria for prioritizing reviews should be established. Reporting channels: Business operators must provide channels for users to report illegal or inappropriate advertisements. Reports must be promptly addressed, prioritizing cases involving intellectual property owners or multiple credible reports. Advertiser account monitoring: Business operators must monitor advertiser accounts. This includes considering factors such as the number of reports/flags received and compliance with service agreements and community standards. For more information on this initiative from the ETDA, or on any aspect related to Thailand’s regulations for DPSs, please contact Athistha (Nop) Chitranukroh at [email protected], Thammapas Chanpanich at [email protected], Pornpan Wichawut at [email protected],
Read More
October 2, 2024
The first draft of Vietnam’s new Personal Data Protection Law (“Draft PDPL”) was released for public consultation on September 24, 2024, and is open for comments until November 24, 2024. (See further details here.) It is expected that the draft will be presented to the National Assembly before the end of 2024 and will be submitted for adoption in May 2025, with a tentative entry into force on January 1, 2026. As the Draft PDPL incorporates most of the provisions of Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (“PDPD”), which has been the primary legal instrument on personal data protection since it took effect on July 1, 2023, it is likely that it will supersede the PDPD when it takes effect. [Please contact our Vietnam data protection team to request a detailed comparison of the Draft PDPL to the PDPD.] Noting that there might be further changes to the draft once the public consultation period closes, the Draft PDPL proposes new specific requirements for a number of services. Some highlights of the current version include the following: Marketing services: Although marketing services are already regulated under the PDPD, the Draft PDPL now recognizes that the use of personal data for marketing must comply with anti-spam regulations. The current draft does not clarify whether organizations are exempted from the consent requirement for the purpose of the initial call or message under the anti-spam regime. Marketing service providers are not allowed to outsource the services to another organization to perform or support the implementation of marketing business, which may prevent the sharing of personal data. Behavioral advertising: Behavioral advertising (targeted personalized advertising based on a user’s activity or personal data) requires the consent of the data subject in a modifiable manner that allows the data subject to refuse to share data
Read More
September 24, 2024
On September 24, 2024, the government of Vietnam issued the first draft of a new Law on Personal Data Protection (“Draft PDPL”). As foreshadowed in our previous legal update, the Ministry of Public Security has been very active in developing this draft law. With this draft, they promise to continue their considerable efforts to establish a robust personal data protection culture in Vietnam, as the Draft PDPL indicates a tentative entry into force on January 1, 2026. With a tentative adoption by the National Assembly in May 2025, the Draft PDPL does not include any transition period, save for micro-enterprises, SMEs, and startups, which are only exempted from appointing a data protection department in their first two years of existence, while the timeline to comply with other obligations under the PDPL remains the same as for other enterprises. The Draft PDPL includes 68 articles, divided into seven chapters, making it more extensive than last year’s Decree No. 13/2023/ND-CP on Personal Data Protection (“PDPD”), and expressly addresses personal data protection in many fields, including marketing services, behavioral advertising, big-data processing, AI, cloud computing, labor monitoring and recruitment, financial and credit information, health and insurance, and others. It remains unclear how the PDPL will interact with the PDPD (whether it will replace its predecessor or coexist with it), although the Draft PDPL provides that it will prevail over any laws that have provisions on personal data protection that differ from the provisions of the PDPL. Among the important new developments of the Draft PDPL when compared to the PDPD, we note: Consent remains the main legal basis for processing, with limited exceptions (still not including “legitimate interest”). However, consent for cross-border transfer is further regulated under the Draft PDPL, including for intra-group sharing. Data processing impact assessment dossiers for controllers and
Read More