Austria
EU-level rules also apply — § 9(2) RAO confidentiality applies without restriction to AI use: entering mandate-related or otherwise confidential information into public or unsecured AI systems 'stellt einen Bruch der Verschwiegenheit dar und ist standesrechtlich unzulässig'. Lawyers may instruct only AI providers that meet the duties in § 40(3) RL-BA; otherwise only abstract, anonymous questions may be asked.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Europe
Austria
Substantialcivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
EU-level rules also apply — see the European Union record →
As of 4 September 2026 Austria has the strictest vendor rule in this group. The OERAK's Kuenstliche Intelligenz in Anwaltskanzleien, of September 2025, applies section 9(2) RAO confidentiality and the binding section 40(3) RL-BA service-provider requirements to AI suppliers, with a checklist the provider must sign. No Austrian court rule was found.
As of 2026-09-04, Austria has 4 binding rules, official guidance in 6 categories, 0 proposals and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover client data in AI tools, horizontal AI statute, mandatory AI training, vendor due diligence. In 8 categories we found nothing; in 2 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
The EU AI Act applies directly. Austria set up a KI-Servicestelle inside the media and telecoms regulator RTR from 1 Feb 2024 (§ 20c KOG and § 194a TKG, both inserted by BGBl. I Nr. 6/2024) as the national contact and information point supporting AI Act implementation. Full designation of Austrian market-surveillance authorities was not verified in this pass.
Article 4 of the EU AI Act binds Austrian firms as deployers from 2 Feb 2025, and the ÖRAK Leitfaden converts this into a hard precondition: AI may only be used if staff have KI-Kompetenz, maintained through regular training. No mandatory AI CLE hours.
The strictest in this group. Under § 40(3) RL-BA the AI provider must sign an undertaking before use; the ÖRAK publishes a checklist the provider must confirm: § 9(2) RAO confidentiality, a § 40(3) RL-BA agreement, an Art. 28 GDPR processor agreement, an absolute ban on using firm input to train models, secure deletion on termination, EU or adequacy-decision hosting (e.g. Switzerland, UK), equivalent compliance by sub-processors, and immediate notification if the provider or a sub-processor is searched by police. The notification duty falls away only for sub-processors that store data briefly and process it fully automatically without human access (§ 40(3)(4) RL-BA).
ÖRAK Leitfaden: because AI systems can produce fabricated information, 'die anwaltliche Sorgfaltspflicht erfordert daher eine ausnahmslose Überprüfung und Verifizierung aller KI-generierten Ergebnisse'; final responsibility for every legal statement remains with the lawyer, and staff must be instructed never to adopt AI-generated text, legal reasoning or sources unchecked.
ÖRAK Leitfaden §4: 'Die Nutzung von KI-Systemen ist nur zulässig, wenn eine KI-Kompetenz der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter besteht' — firms must run regular staff training on data-leak risk, handling confidential information and critical questioning of AI content.
ÖRAK Leitfaden §4 requires a binding internal directive setting which AI applications may be used and for what, what data may never be entered (never mandate-related or personal), which use cases are strictly forbidden, and a named person responsible for selecting, reviewing and approving new AI tools — plus a defined process for human review of every AI output.
ÖRAK 'KÜNSTLICHE INTELLIGENZ (KI) IN ANWALTSKANZLEIEN', Stand September 2025, issued by the ÖRAK's Ausschuss IT und Digitalisierung — four pages in five sections (AI basics, professional and data-protection framework, practical implementation, AI competence, provider checklist), distributed through the Anwaltsblatt. The ÖRAK also ran its first KI-Tag in March 2026.
GDPR applies; the ÖRAK Leitfaden requires an Art. 28 GDPR processor agreement alongside the § 40(3) RL-BA undertaking. No Austrian Datenschutzbehörde guidance specific to AI in legal services was located.
The Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) is one of the few institutions with a published AI note; its provisions on confidentiality of case data in AI tools, non-delegation of the arbitrator's decision and verification are covered in the international map.
No Austrian court rule or Erlass requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026.
No Austrian rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026; the EU AI Act (Annex III point 8(a), recital 61) and art. 22 GDPR apply.
No Austrian court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No Austrian evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.
The ÖRAK Leitfaden does not require informing clients or obtaining consent for AI use; no other Austrian rule found as of 4 September 2026.
No Austrian rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
No Austrian ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.
No reported Austrian court or disciplinary decision on hallucinated AI citations found as of 4 September 2026.
Not researched — no guidance from the Austrian judiciary or the Federal Ministry of Justice on judges using generative AI was located before the search budget was exhausted. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as Council of Europe soft law.
Not researched — no published Austrian policy on institutional court AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.
Official documents recorded for Austria (1)
- Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) in Anwaltskanzleien — Leitfaden und Checkliste für KI-Dienstleister
ÖRAK · revised 2025-09-23 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Austria
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Austria" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/at (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.