Status of the AI Regulations

As stated above, the AI Act was approved by the Cabinet Office on February 28, 2025, and approved by Parliament on May 28, 2025. The General Assembly of the Headquarters held its first meeting on September 12, 2025, and the Basic AI Plan was approved by the Cabinet Office on December 23, 2025.

Other laws affecting AI

Various laws, though not adopted specifically to regulate AI, are likely to affect the development or use of AI in Japan. A non-exhaustive list of key examples includes:

• The Digital Platform Transparency Act, which imposes requirements on large online malls, app stores, and digital advertising businesses to ensure transparency and fairness in transactions with business users
• The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, which requires businesses engaging in algorithmic high-speed trading to register with the government, establish a risk management system, and maintain transaction records
• The Civil Code, which allows tort claims to be brought against a person who has given instructions to AI to produce defamatory content about another person and published such content
• The Copyright Act and the Act on the Protection of Personal Information, which can be applied to inappropriate uses of AI

There have also been efforts to legislate the takedown and prevention of fake or wrong content. On May 9, 2024, the Information Distribution Providers Act (which is the amendment of the existing Providers' Liability Limitation Act) was passed by the Diet (the national legislature of Japan) with an aim to expedite content takedown requests. Even though it is not an AI-specific law and does not address AI-generated content, the draft discussion points of the Information Distribution Providers Act refer to it as a means for addressing risks arising from AI.

In addition, various acts involving AI may already be caught by the Criminal Code: using AI to defame another could fall under the ambit of defamation; using AI-generated fake content to interfere with someone's business could be punishable as an obstruction of business; and giving unauthorized commands to another person's computer can also be punishable under the criminal code.

The Intellectual Property Strategic Headquarters of the Cabinet Office also released a draft principle code relating to intellectual property and AI ("Principle Code").⁶ While there is no connection of the Principle Code to a specific Article in the AI Act, the draft does state that it is based on the intent of the AI Act. According to the draft, the Principle Code would apply to "Generative AI Businesses" (as defined in the Principle Code) and the government will expect such businesses to publish an acceptance statement on their website and describe how the company has implemented the three principles defined in the Principle Code or provide an explanation of why they have not implemented them, as applicable. Each principle contains detailed requirements, but includes, among other things, (i) that the company would disclose an overview of the type of data used to train AI models, (ii) that the company will create internal controls for protecting IP rights and post a summary of its policy, and (iii) that if requested by a third party that believes it may have a legal claim against the company regarding such person's rights or other legally protected interests, the company will confirm whether certain webpages were used in the AI model. Similar to the AI Act, the draft Principle Code, as released on December 26, 2025, does not provide for monetary penalties for noncompliance.ction of business; and giving unauthorized commands to another person's computer can also be punishable under the criminal code.

Definition of “AI”

"Artificial Intelligence-related technologies" is defined under Article 2 of the AI Act to mean: the technology necessary to realize functions that substitute human cognitive, reasoning, and judgment abilities through artificial means. It also includes technology related to information processing systems that process information using such technology and outputs results.

Territorial scope

The AI Act does not clearly set out a territorial scope; however, Article 16 states that the government will be analyzing information regarding the development and use of AI domestically and abroad. Furthermore, neither the AI Act nor the Basic AI Plan distinguishes between on-shore and off-shore entities in its definition of research institutions or AI business actors, and the AI Utilization Guidelines state that overseas businesses are included among the "AI utilizing businesses" described within. It also appears that the Principle Code is intended to have extraterritorial effect.

Sectoral scope

There is no clearly defined sectoral scope, which is not surprising given the fundamental law role of the Act. Rather, the law applies generally to developers, providers and business users of AI.

Compliance roles

As noted above, private businesses are under a duty to make reasonable efforts to use AI in accordance with the Act's core principles. They also must comply with any policies that may be created by the national or local government bodies through the authority granted to them.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

The AI Act states that its core principles are to promote competitiveness, ensure transparency, and to foster productivity through advancing fundamental AI research and personnel development. While advancing these goals, the government aims to investigate and guide organizations away from the improper use of AI, which are uses that may lead to the violation of rights or harm prosperity.

Additionally, the Hiroshima Principles identify several significant risks, including: disinformation, copyright, cybersecurity, risks to health and safety, and societal risks (e.g., the ways in which advanced AI systems can give rise to harmful bias and discrimination).

The government has noted the following risks as ones that Japan should prioritize: safety, privacy and fairness, national security and crime, property protection, and intellectual property.

Further, regarding copyright, in-depth discussions are being held in Japan about how existing laws (i.e., the Copyright Act of Japan) should address issues concerning rights and harms that may arise from generative AI.

Risk categorization

There are no specific risk categories defined in the AI Act. The investigation right granted to the government is aimed at the research, development or use of AI for improper purposes. Improper purposes are described broadly as potentially leading to the violation of rights or harming prosperity.

Key compliance requirements

As noted above, the AI Act does not provide for detailed compliance obligations, but the AI Strategic Headquarters has published the AI Utilization Guidelines. The AI Utilization Guidelines recommend a general policy to ensure the appropriate use of AI for all subjects of the AI Act, which is comprised of (i) taking a risk-based approach, (ii) actively involving stakeholders in AI governance, (iii) establishing a holistic AI life-cycle governance framework to address risks present in the development and use of AI, and (iv) having an agile response to the risks related to AI.

The Guidelines for Business also provide certain general principles which AI business actors are expected to incorporate into the training and deployment of their products and services. However, it is up to each AI business actor to determine how to give effect to the principles. The principles are:

• Human-centric – The use of AI must not infringe upon the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the constitution and international standards
• Safety – Each AI business actor avoids damage to the lives, bodies, minds, and properties of stakeholders
• Fairness – Elimination of unfair and harmful bias and discrimination
• Privacy protection – Each AI business actor respects and protects privacy
• Ensuring security – Each AI business actor ensures security to prevent the behaviors of AI from being unintentionally altered or stopped by unauthorized manipulations
• Transparency – Each AI business actor provides stakeholders with information to the reasonable extent necessary and technically possible while ensuring the verifiability of the AI system or service
• Accountability – Each AI business actor is accountable to stakeholders to ensure traceability, conforming to common guiding principles, based on each AI business actor's role and degree of risk posed by the AI system or service
• Education/literacy – Each AI business actor is expected to provide persons engaged in its business with education regarding knowledge, literacy and ethics concerning the use of AI in a socially correct manner, and provide stakeholders with education about complexity, misinformation, and possibilities of intentional misuse
• Ensuring fair competition – Each AI business actor is expected to maintain a fair competitive environment so that new businesses and services using AI are created
• Innovation – Each AI business actor is expected to promote innovation and consider interconnectivity and interoperability

Regulators

The Headquarters, as headed by the Prime Minister and comprised of all Cabinet members, is the leading government body for AI. The Headquarters has also established its Expert Investigation Team to conduct the investigations described in the Act. Additionally, the following ministries and agencies have been substantively engaged in establishing and promoting guidelines regarding AI:

• The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry
• The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
• The Agency for Cultural Affairs (particularly for copyright issues)
• The Personal Information Commission
• Digital Agency

Guidelines promulgated by ministries in Japan are often followed closely by companies and the public, even though they are not binding law.

Enforcement powers and penalties

As noted above, the AI Act imposes the duty to make reasonable efforts to: (i) use AI in accordance with the Act's core guiding principles; (ii) cooperate with investigations; and (iii) follow guidance issued as a result. There are no specific penalties or fines associated with refusing to cooperate, but the AI Act gives the government broad authority to take actions it believes are necessary based on its investigations and to fulfill its duties.

Further insights from White & Case:

• Japan's first AI legislation becomes law – Focus is on promoting research and development; no monetary penalties

_{1 See the AI Act language here (only available in Japanese).
2 See the AI Guidelines for Business Version 1.1 here, issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
3 See the Hiroshima Guiding Principles here.
4 From the overview of the AI Act published here.
5 See the AI Utilization Guidelines here.
6 See the draft Principle Code here.}

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}