JapanThe Act on Promotion of Research, Development and Utilisation of AI-Related Technology, Law No. 53 of 2025, promulgated 4 June 2025 and fully in force 1 September 2025, is a framework statute creating the AI Strategy Headquarters and a basic plan, with no risk classification, penalties or justice-sector provisions.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific
Japan
Developingcivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 Japan relies on soft law. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations issued members-only guidance on generative AI in September 2025; the Ministry of Justice guideline of August 2023 governs AI contract review under Attorney Act article 72; the AI Promotion Act imposes no binding duties. The Supreme Court is preparing a civil-trial pilot.
As of 2026-09-04, Japan has 1 binding rule, official guidance in 6 categories, 1 proposal and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover horizontal AI statute. In 12 categories we found nothing; in 0 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 JFBA AI Strategy Working Group notice of September 2025, Points of Attention on the Use of Generative AI in Attorney Practice, states that outputs may cite fictitious case law and must be checked against primary sources, and that the attorney bears final responsibility. The text is members-only.
The JFBA notice of September 2025 warns against entering client-identifiable or confidential information into external generative-AI services under the duty of confidentiality in Attorney Act article 23. The Personal Information Protection Commission alert of 2 June 2023 cautions all businesses on entering personal data into generative AI.
The JFBA notice of September 2025 is reported to address explaining AI use to clients as part of the attorney's accountability; the text is members-only so the precise wording could not be verified.
The Ministry of Justice guideline of August 2023 on AI contract-drafting and review services and Attorney Act article 72: a service breaches article 72 only if provided for remuneration, concerning a legal case, and constituting legal affairs. Generative-AI services are judged on the same framework.
The JFBA AI Strategy Working Group notice of September 2025 is members-only and covers confidentiality, hallucination, responsibility and client explanation. The Japan Patent Attorneys Association published public AI-use guidelines for patent attorneys in April 2025.
The Personal Information Protection Commission alert of 2 June 2023 on generative AI cautions on entering personal data into prompts and records a notice to OpenAI. It is general rather than legal-sector-specific.
The Supreme Court announced on 28 August 2026 a budget request for the 2027 financial year, reported at about 60 million yen, for a demonstration using records of settled civil cases to have AI draft record summaries and issue lists, with leak prevention for personal data. No AI is used in trials today.
No court rule or practice direction requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.
No published rule for judges' use of generative AI; the Supreme Court states that AI is not currently used in trials. A six-judge study group at the Tokyo and Osaka District Courts worked in early 2026 on the premise that AI will not enter judges' decision-making.
No rule exists. The Supreme Court's stated design principle for its pilot is that AI assists only with summarising records and issue lists, never with judgment.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No AI-specific or deepfake-specific evidence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.
No competence rule naming AI or technology 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 reported Japanese court sanction for AI-fabricated citations found as of 4 September 2026; Japanese coverage concerns foreign cases.
No Japan Commercial Arbitration Association or other institutional AI rule found as of 4 September 2026.
No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.
No vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.
Official documents recorded for Japan (5)
- Supreme Court of Japan generative-AI demonstration for civil trials (FY2027 budget request)
Supreme Court of Japan · revised 2026-08-28 · verified 2026-09-04
- Points of Attention on the Use of Generative AI in Attorney Practice: Five Points for Appropriate Use
JFBA · revised 2025-09-01 · verified 2026-09-04
- Act on the Promotion of Research, Development and Utilisation of AI-Related Technology (Law No. 53 of 2025)
Japan Diet · revised 2025-06-04 · verified 2026-09-04
- Relationship between AI-based contract-drafting, review and management support services and Article 72 of the Attorney Act
Japan MoJ · revised 2023-08-01 · verified 2026-09-04
- Alert on the use of generative AI services
Japan PPC · revised 2023-06-02 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Japan
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Japan" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/jp (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.