Italy
EU-level rules also apply — Law 132/2025 article 15(1): in any use of AI in judicial activity, every decision on interpretation and application of the law, assessment of facts and evidence, and adoption of measures is always reserved to the magistrate. Article 15(4) tasks the Minister of Justice with AI training for magistrates and court staff.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Europe
Italy
Extensivecivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
EU-level rules also apply — see the European Union record →
As of 4 September 2026 Italy is the only country in this group with a statute directly on point: Law 132/2025, in force 10 October 2025, reserves every judicial decision to the judge, puts court AI under Ministry of Justice authorisation, and obliges professionals to inform clients about AI use. Courts have sanctioned hallucinated citations.
As of 2026-09-04, Italy has 7 binding rules, official guidance in 3 categories, 0 proposals and 3 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover judges' use of AI, AI barred from deciding cases, client consent and transparency, courts' own AI deployment, horizontal AI statute, mandatory AI training, vendor due diligence. In 6 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
Law 132/2025 article 15(1) reserves to the judge all decisions on law, facts, evidence and the adoption of measures, so AI may only assist. Article 14(2) applies the same instrumental and support limit to public administration, with the human remaining solely responsible.
Law 132/2025 article 13(2): to protect the fiduciary relationship, information on the AI systems used by the professional must be communicated to the client in clear, simple and exhaustive language. The National Bar Council circulated a model client notice to all local bars on 13 October 2025.
Law 132/2025 article 15(2)-(3): the Ministry of Justice regulates AI use for court-service organisation and ancillary administration; until the EU AI Act is fully applicable, any experimentation or use of AI in ordinary judicial offices must be authorised by the Ministry after consulting AgID and the national cybersecurity agency.
The EU AI Act, Annex III point 8 on justice, applies directly. Law 132/2025 is the national framework, requires interpretation in conformity with Regulation 2024/1689, designates AgID and the national cybersecurity agency as national authorities, and delegates further decrees.
Law 132/2025 article 15(4) obliges the Minister of Justice to promote AI teaching in the training programme for magistrates, covering basic and advanced digital skills and the benefits and risks of AI, and to train administrative staff. There is no mandatory AI training for lawyers.
For courts, Ministry of Justice authorisation is required before AI systems are trialled or used in judicial offices under Law 132/2025 article 15(3). For lawyers, only the CCBE guides circulated through the National Bar Council apply; there is no Italian vendor due-diligence rule.
No Italy-specific rule. The National Bar Council republished the CCBE guide on generative AI in Italian in November 2025, which covers confidentiality and data entered into tools. Law 132/2025 article 13(1) confines professional AI use to instrumental and support activities.
The Codice deontologico forense does not name AI. Law 132/2025 article 13(1) requires the prevalence of the professional's intellectual work; competence expectations otherwise come from the CCBE guide as circulated by the National Bar Council.
The National Bar Council's official output is the article 13 model client notice of 13 October 2025 and the Italian edition of the CCBE guide published in November 2025; no standalone generative-AI guideline was located. Local bars such as Torre Annunziata and Rome have issued their own guidelines.
No statutory or bar rule names a verification duty; the courts have set it. Tribunale di Firenze (14 March 2025) censured the failure to verify ChatGPT citations; Tribunale di Siracusa (20 February 2026) treated unverified generative-AI output as gross negligence; the Cassazione declared a petition inadmissible for probable hallucination.
- Tribunale di Firenze, Sezione Imprese, order of 14 March 2025 (ChatGPT-invented Cassazione citations) 2025-03-14
- Tribunale di Siracusa, Sez. II civ., judgment no. 338/2026 (AI-hallucinated citations, Art. 96 c.p.c.) 2026-02-20
- Il Sole 24 Ore NT+ Diritto on Tribunale di Siracusa
- Litis.it on Tribunale di Firenze
Tribunale di Firenze (14 March 2025) accepted that a trainee had used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge but still censured the signing lawyer's failure to verify; TAR Lombardia in October 2025 referred a lawyer to the Milan bar for discipline. There is no express supervision rule.
Tribunale di Siracusa judgment 338/2026 applied article 96(3)-(4) of the code of civil procedure for four phantom Cassazione citations, awarding about 30,200 euro in fees, damages and a court-fund payment. Tribunale di Firenze refused sanctions absent bad faith and TAR Lombardia referred counsel to the bar.
No court rule or practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Disclosure duties under Law 132/2025 article 13 run to the client, not the court. A Rome Bar operational guideline of February 2026 was reported in the press but could not be opened.
No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026. Law 132/2025 article 13 governs AI inside regulated professions, not AI offered directly to the public.
No Garante guidance specific to AI in legal services found as of 4 September 2026; the GDPR and the Garante's general AI enforcement apply. The research budget was exhausted before the Garante site could be checked directly.
Not researched because the research budget was exhausted; no Italian arbitral-institution AI rule was identified.
Official documents recorded for Italy (4)
- Tribunale di Siracusa, Sez. II civ., judgment no. 338/2026 (AI-hallucinated citations, Art. 96 c.p.c.)
Trib. Siracusa · revised 2026-02-20 · verified 2026-09-04
- CNF communication to local bars with model client notice on AI use (Art. 13 Law 132/2025)
CNF · revised 2025-10-13 · verified 2026-09-04
- Law 23 September 2025 no. 132 on artificial intelligence (Legge 132/2025)
Parliament (IT) · revised 2025-09-25 · verified 2026-09-04
- Tribunale di Firenze, Sezione Imprese, order of 14 March 2025 (ChatGPT-invented Cassazione citations)
Trib. Firenze · revised 2025-03-14 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Italy
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Italy" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/it (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.