TaiwanThe AI Basic Act, passed 23 December 2025 and promulgated 14 January 2026, has 20 articles: article 5 requires warnings for high-risk applications, article 16 tasks the Ministry of Digital Affairs with an internationally aligned risk-classification framework, and article 19 requires risk assessment before government AI use. No justice-specific tier exists yet.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific
Taiwan
Developingcivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 Taiwan has a horizontal AI Basic Act promulgated on 14 January 2026 requiring risk classification and government AI risk assessments, and Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines of 22 April 2026 imposing verification duties on court users. The Judicial Yuan's on-premises judgment-drafting tool leaves facts, law and sentencing to judges. No rules bind lawyers.
As of 2026-09-04, Taiwan has 1 binding rule, official guidance in 5 categories, 0 proposals and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover horizontal AI statute. 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
Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines for Use of AI Systems, issued by order of 22 April 2026, article 8: users must recognise hallucination risk and cross-check AI output against official documents, case files and legal databases before use. The guidelines apply to court personnel, not to lawyers.
The Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines of 22 April 2026, chapter 2, govern user conduct. Earlier Judicial Yuan statements of August 2023 committed to follow the Executive Yuan generative-AI guidelines and to develop court-specific rules.
The Judicial Yuan stated in August 2023 that its generative-AI drafting system covers only dangerous-driving and fraud-accessory cases and that fact-finding, application of law and sentencing remain entirely with the judge. The 2026 guidelines state that AI may only assist adjudication.
The Judicial Yuan generative-AI judgment-drafting system, announced 27 August 2023, runs an on-premises model for two offence types with drug offences piloted from December 2023, alongside speech recognition and chatbots. The 2026 guidelines govern internal AI use.
The Judicial Yuan guidelines of 2026 require risk management in system deployment, and the 2023 drafting system was built on-premises to keep case data local. AI Basic Act article 19 requires government risk assessment before AI use.
No court rule. A May 2026 Judicial Weekly article by a High Court judge notes that Taiwan still lacks rules for external users such as lawyers and recommends a dual-track disclosure duty.
No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.
No AI-specific evidence rule; Judicial Weekly in May 2026 recommends adopting the approach of the draft United States Federal Rule of Evidence 707. AI Basic Act article 5 requires warnings on high-risk AI products.
No bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026; the Judicial Yuan guidelines address court data only.
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 Taiwan Bar Association generative-AI guidance found; Judicial Weekly in May 2026 confirms the absence of rules for lawyers.
No AI-specific or legal-sector-specific data-protection guidance found as of 4 September 2026; the AI Basic Act includes privacy-by-design principles.
No reported Taiwanese court sanction for AI-fabricated citations found as of 4 September 2026.
No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.
Not researched within the research budget; the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei, was not checked.
Official documents recorded for Taiwan (3)
- Reference Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by the Judicial Yuan and Subordinate Agencies
Judicial Yuan · revised 2026-04-22 · verified 2026-09-04
- Artificial Intelligence Basic Act (Taiwan)
Taiwan Legislative Yuan · revised 2026-01-14 · verified 2026-09-04
- Judicial Yuan statement on generative-AI judgment drafting for criminal cases
Judicial Yuan · revised 2023-08-27 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Taiwan
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Taiwan" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/tw (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.