EcuadorThe Ethics Committee protocol, approved 16 June 2026 and awaiting a Judiciary Council resolution, requires every procedural document to declare when and how AI was used. It binds judicial actors such as judges, prosecutors, defenders and staff rather than private lawyers, and is not yet in force.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Americas
Ecuador
Early: one or two positionscivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 Ecuador is mid-transition: the Judicial Function's Ethics Committee approved a twenty-three-principle AI protocol on 16 June 2026 barring AI from deciding, prohibiting public tools for case data and requiring AI use to be declared, pending formal adoption; a July 2026 bill would write verification duties and sanctions into the judiciary code.
As of 2026-09-04, Ecuador has 0 binding rules, official guidance in 0 categories, 6 proposals and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. In 13 categories we found nothing; in 1 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
A bill to reform the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, presented on 13 July 2026, would bar judges from using AI information without verifying accuracy, relevance and currency, and bar lawyers from filing AI-generated content without verifying it where it could mislead. It is at an initial stage.
The Ethics Committee protocol of 16 June 2026, drafted with the Judiciary Council, National Court, Prosecutor General and Public Defender, sets 23 principles, five common directives and actor-specific rules; judges may not motivate rulings with algorithms or assess credibility via AI. A formal resolution is pending.
Protocol directive 1: no AI may issue, replace or determine judicial decisions, and judges cannot motivate rulings with algorithms. The July 2026 bill would make incorporating unverified AI content a serious disciplinary offence for judicial personnel. Neither is in force.
Protocol directive 2: public AI tools are prohibited for case data, only institutional tools may be used, and administrative staff may not enter personal data into unauthorised systems. It applies to judicial actors and is not yet in force.
The protocol confines judicial actors to institutional AI tools authorised by task type, and Ecuador also participates in the Ibero-American AI-assisted drafting project. No deployment policy is in force as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule; the protocol bans AI translation or analysis of Kichwa and Shuar testimony, which is a procedural safeguard rather than an admissibility rule. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No generative-AI guidance from provincial bar associations found as of 4 September 2026.
The Organic Law on Personal Data Protection of 2021 applies; no AI-specific guidance from the data protection superintendence relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.
No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated content found as of 4 September 2026; the July 2026 bill would create a disciplinary offence.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
AI-law proposals have circulated in the National Assembly but their status could not be verified against official records in this research window.
Official documents recorded for Ecuador (2)
- Bill reforming the Organic Code of the Judicial Function to regulate AI use in judicial proceedings
Asamblea Nacional · revised 2026-07-13 · verified 2026-09-04
- Protocol for the use of artificial intelligence in the Judicial Function (Ethics Committee)
Comite de Etica FJ · revised 2026-06-16 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Ecuador
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Ecuador" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ec (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.