{"id":145694,"date":"2026-08-12T09:19:09","date_gmt":"2026-08-12T09:19:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=145694"},"modified":"2026-08-12T09:28:54","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T09:28:54","slug":"malaysia-artificial-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/malaysia-artificial-intelligence\/","title":{"rendered":"Malaysia: Artificial Intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-145694","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-artificial-intelligence","jurisdictions-malaysia"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Lee &amp; Poh Partnership<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/07\/lpp-law-logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Lee &amp; Poh Partnership<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/07\/lpp-law-logo.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Artificial Intelligence laws and regulations applicable in Malaysia<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal definition of \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d in your jurisdiction, if any? If no definition exists, how do regulators or courts typically describe artificial intelligence?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia does not currently have a general statutory definition of \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d (AI) in an AI-specific statute. There is also no settled general definition of AI developed by Malaysian courts. Regulators and policymakers have instead described AI functionally. The National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics describe AI broadly as technology that enables machines or software to learn, reason, perceive, understand language, enhance human capabilities, and improve decision-making. The Guidelines also state that AI involves technology being applied to carry out intelligent behaviour using data and input on a computer system.<\/p>\n<p>In the Malaysian courts, AI has so far been discussed in a limited and functional way. In Public Prosecutor v Denis P Modili [2020] MLJU 2232, the court considered the use of an AI sentencing system in Sabah. The AI system generated a sentencing recommendation based on past sentencing data, but it was treated as an assistive tool rather than a substitute for judicial discretion. Accordingly, the current Malaysian judicial approach appears to describe AI by reference to what it does, such as predictive, analytical, or recommendation functions, rather than by a fixed legal definition.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country developed a national strategy for artificial intelligence? If yes, what progress has been made in its implementation? Are there plans for updates or revisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia has developed a national AI strategy through the National Artificial Intelligence Roadmap 2021\u20132025, led by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The Roadmap was intended to develop Malaysia\u2019s AI ecosystem and promote responsible AI adoption across priority sectors.<\/p>\n<p>Implementation has progressed through, among other things, the launch of the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics in September 2024, which form part of Malaysia\u2019s broader AI governance framework. (National Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Governance and Ethics) Malaysia has also established the National AI Office, which is intended to act as a central body for AI policy, strategic planning, regulatory development, adoption, and coordination.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the Minister of Digital on the 24th of November 2025, has stated that an AI legislative framework is expected to be presented to Cabinet in June 2026. This suggests that Malaysia\u2019s AI strategy is evolving from roadmap and voluntary guidance into a more formal regulatory framework.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your jurisdiction adopted any AI-specific laws, regulations, voluntary standards, or ethical guidelines? If so, please provide a brief overview. If not, which existing laws could be\/are applied to artificial intelligence and the use of artificial intelligence, what are the main interpretive challenges, and are there any pending artificial intelligence legislative initiatives?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia has not yet enacted a comprehensive AI-specific law. At present, the main AI-specific instrument is the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (AIGE Guidelines), launched in 2024, which provide a voluntary framework for responsible AI development and use, including principles on fairness, transparency, accountability, privacy, safety, and security. The Guidelines set out seven responsible AI principles, namely (i) fairness, (ii) reliability, safety and control, (iii) privacy and security, (iv) inclusiveness, (v) transparency, (vi) accountability and (vii) human benefit and happiness. They are not legislation, but they are important because they indicate the Malaysian Government\u2019s expected direction for responsible AI development and deployment.<\/p>\n<p>AI is currently regulated through a patchwork of existing laws. These include (i) the Personal Data Protection Act 2010, where AI systems process personal data, (ii) the Cyber Security Act 2024, where AI systems are used by or affect National Critical Information Infrastructure entities, (iii) the Consumer Protection Act 1999, where defective AI-enabled products cause loss or damage, (iv) the Data Sharing Act 2025, which facilitates data sharing between public sector agencies and may support public-sector data analytics and AI-related government use cases and (v) the Online Safety Act 2025 which enforces strict obligations on social media and internet platforms regarding Artificial Intelligence whereby platforms with over 8 million users must implement synthetic media labeling, conduct pre-deployment risk evaluations, and regularly assess system algorithms to prevent the spread of harmful AI-generated content.<\/p>\n<p>The main interpretive challenges are that these laws were not designed specifically for AI. Issues may arise in determining liability for autonomous or semi-autonomous decisions, proving causation where AI systems are opaque, allocating responsibility between developers and deployers, managing algorithmic bias, and fitting AI-generated content or AI-assisted inventions into existing intellectual property frameworks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there legal requirements for artificial intelligence transparency, explainability, or audits? Are there obligations to disclose the use of artificial intelligence to customers\/clients?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia does not currently have a general AI statute imposing mandatory transparency, explainability, or audit requirements across all AI systems. However, the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics emphasise transparency, accountability, explainability, auditability, and responsible deployment. These are voluntary and are not yet mandatory legal obligations for all businesses.<\/p>\n<p>Where AI systems are used in or affect National Critical Information Infrastructure (NCII), cybersecurity audit obligations may apply under the Cyber Security (Period for Cyber Security Risk Assessment and Audit) Regulations 2024. NCII entities are required to conduct regular cybersecurity risk assessments and audits, with subsidiary regulations providing for annual cyber security risk assessments and cybersecurity audits at least once every two years. These obligations are cybersecurity-focused rather than AI-specific, but they may apply to AI systems deployed within NCII environments.<\/p>\n<p>For personal data, Malaysia\u2019s Automated Decision-Making and Profiling Guideline also expects data controllers to inform data subjects where automated decision-making or profiling is used, and where AI is used in such processing, the controller may disclose the use of AI in its privacy notice. Therefore, AI disclosure is not yet a general mandatory rule, but disclosure may be expected as a best practice or arise indirectly through data protection and cybersecurity compliance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there legal requirements or best practice expectations for human oversight and human-in-the-loop in artificial intelligence systems?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia does not currently impose a general statutory human-in-the-loop requirement for AI systems. The AIGE Guidelines nevertheless recognise human control as part of responsible AI governance and encourage safeguards for reliability, safety, and accountability. Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 is also relevant only by analogy, as it recognises the admissibility of computer-generated documents even where there is no direct or indirect human intervention. However, it is an evidentiary rule rather than an AI oversight obligation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there specific legal or regulatory requirements addressing algorithmic bias, discrimination, or fairness in AI systems (including gender bias)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia has no AI-specific statutory provisions addressing algorithmic bias, discrimination, or gender bias. However, Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds including religion, race, descent, place of birth, and gender in specified contexts. In the AI context, the AIGE Guidelines are the main AI-specific source and encourage fairness, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, and mitigation of bias in AI systems.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What legal frameworks apply to AI-related harm and defective artificial intelligence systems? Who can be held liable (developer, deployer, victim of the damage, others), how is liability allocated, and what burden of proof applies to victims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia has no AI-specific liability regime. AI-related harm would likely be addressed through existing legal frameworks, including tort, contract, consumer protection, product liability, professional liability, and data protection law. Contract law pursuant to the Contracts Act 1950 may govern warranties, service levels, indemnities, and allocation of risk between developers, vendors, and deployers. Tort law may apply where negligence, causation, and damage can be proven. The Consumer Protection Act 1999 may apply to defective AI-enabled products, particularly where AI is embedded in goods or supplied as part of consumer products or services. Liability allocation is fact-specific: developers may face claims for design or development defects, while deployers may face claims for negligent implementation, inadequate monitoring, misuse, or failure to provide appropriate human oversight. The claimant would generally bear the burden of proving breach or defect, causation, and loss.<\/p>\n<p>Liability for AI-related harm is also governed by other sector-specific legislation together with general principles of contract, negligence and product liability. The principal statutes include the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (\u201cPDPA\u201d), Cyber Security Act 2024 (\u201cCSA\u201d), Data Sharing Act 2025 (\u201cDSA\u201d) and Online Safety Act 2025 (\u201cOSA\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>The PDPA applies where AI systems process personal data in commercial transactions. Liability primarily rests with the data controller, being the organisation that determines the purposes and means of processing. AI developers or service providers may also be liable where they act as data controllers or, following the 2024 amendments, as data processors with direct statutory security obligations.The PDPA regulates the lawful processing and protection of personal data, including compliance with security requirements and data breach notification obligations. However, it does not create a standalone statutory right to compensation for AI-related harm. Persons seeking damages would generally need to pursue separate civil claims, such as negligence or breach of contract, and bear the ordinary civil burden of proving breach, causation and loss.<\/p>\n<p>The CSA applies where AI systems are used by, or affect, National Critical Information Infrastructure (&#8220;NCII&#8221;). The primary responsibility lies with the designated NCII entity, which must implement cybersecurity measures, conduct risk assessments, comply with applicable codes of practice and report cybersecurity incidents. External AI developers or vendors may also face contractual or common law liability where defective design or inadequate cybersecurity contributes to the harm. The Act additionally provides for derivative liability of directors and senior officers, subject to statutory due diligence defences. The CSA is primarily a regulatory and criminal statute and does not establish a general statutory compensation regime for victims of AI-related harm.<\/p>\n<p>The DSA governs data sharing between public sector agencies and facilitates data-driven government functions, including AI and advanced analytics. Liability may arise for public sector agencies, authorised officers and approved third-party service providers that fail to comply with statutory requirements relating to lawful data sharing, security and confidentiality. Directors and senior officers of statutory bodies may also incur derivative liability unless they establish the statutory due diligence defence. The Act is principally regulatory and does not create a standalone civil cause of action for individuals affected by AI-assisted government decision-making.<\/p>\n<p>The OSA regulates online services, including AI systems used to generate, recommend, moderate or amplify harmful online content. The primary duty holders are licensed applications service providers and licensed content applications service providers, which must implement appropriate online safety measures, including protections relating to AI-driven recommendation systems. The Act primarily establishes regulatory obligations and enforcement mechanisms rather than a private compensation regime. AI developers are generally not directly liable under the Act unless they also operate the regulated online service or assume relevant statutory responsibilities.<\/p>\n<p>On the basis of the above, liability under Malaysian law is generally allocated according to each participant&#8217;s role in the AI ecosystem. For example, developers may be liable for defective design, inadequate security or data processing activities. Deployers or operators are typically the primary regulated entities, particularly under the PDPA, CSA and OSA. Manufacturers, importers and suppliers may incur statutory product liability under the CPA.<br \/>\nPublic sector agencies and authorised service providers may be responsible under the DSA.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What cybersecurity obligations apply to AI systems?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>AI systems are not subject to a standalone AI cybersecurity statute. However, where AI systems are used by or affect National Critical Information Infrastructure entities, the Cyber Security Act 2024 may apply. The Act empowers the national cybersecurity authorities to coordinate cybersecurity policy and issue directions to relevant entities. NCII entities may be required to comply with cybersecurity codes, conduct cybersecurity risk assessments and audits, notify cybersecurity incidents, and comply with related subsidiary regulations. These obligations are cybersecurity-focused rather than AI-specific, but they may apply to AI systems deployed in NCII sectors such as banking, energy, healthcare, telecommunications, and public services.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the use of artificial intelligence insured and\/or insurable in your jurisdiction, including with cyber policies? Are there market trends, or limitations?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia does not currently have a mandatory AI insurance regime. AI-related risks are generally insurable in principle, depending on the nature of the risk and policy wording. Relevant policies may include cyber insurance, technology errors and omissions insurance, professional indemnity insurance, product liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, crime or fraud insurance, and media or intellectual property-related policies. However, AI risks may not always be expressly covered. Some AI exposures may fall within existing policies as \u201csilent AI\u201d risks, similar to the earlier problem of \u201csilent cyber\u201d risk. Coverage will depend on issues such as whether the loss arose from a cyber incident, professional negligence, defective product, privacy breach, bodily injury, property damage, misinformation, intellectual property infringement, or regulatory investigation. Market commentary indicates that insurers are still developing clearer approaches to AI-specific underwriting, exclusions, and aggregation risk. International insurance commentary has also cautioned that one policy is unlikely to cover all AI risks, because AI exposures may be distributed across several types of insurance. Accordingly, AI use is generally insurable, but insureds should review policy wording carefully to determine whether AI-related risks are affirmatively covered, excluded, sub-limited, or only incidentally covered.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can artificial intelligence be named as an inventor in a patent application filed in your jurisdiction? If not, what is the current legal position?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no reported Malaysian court decision definitively deciding whether an AI system can be named as an inventor. However, the current legal position is that an AI system is unlikely to be accepted as an inventor under Malaysia\u2019s patent framework. The Patents Act 1983 does not expressly define \u201cinventor\u201d. However, section 12 defines an invention as an idea of an inventor which permits in practice the solution to a specific problem in the field of technology. The filing requirements also assume that an inventor has a name and address.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Malaysian patent commentary notes that Regulation 6 of the Patents Regulations 1986 requires the application to contain the inventor\u2019s name and address, and allows an inventor who does not wish to be named to make a signed written declaration. These requirements strongly suggest that Malaysian patent law contemplates a human inventor. Commentators have therefore concluded that a DABUS-style application naming an AI system as inventor would likely face the same difficulty in Malaysia as in other jurisdictions, because a machine cannot provide a signed declaration or indicate whether it wishes to be named. Accordingly, it is our view that AI cannot presently be named as an inventor in Malaysia. Where AI assists in the inventive process, the applicant should identify the relevant human inventor or inventors and the extent of their involvement, if they satisfy the legal requirements for inventorship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do images or works generated by and\/or with artificial intelligence benefit from copyright protection in your jurisdiction? If so, who is the authorship attributed to, and under what conditions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Malaysia, the copyright status of works generated by or with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) is governed primarily by the Copyright Act 1987 (\u201cCA\u201d) and interpreted through judicial principles of originality and authorship. While the Act does not explicitly mention \u201cAI-generated works,\u201d the current legal framework provides the following guidance:-<\/p>\n<p>For a work to benefit from copyright protection in Malaysia, it must satisfy the requirements under Section 7 CA, where Section 7(3)(a) CA requires that \u201csufficient effort has been expended to make the work original in character\u201d and Section 7(3)(b) requires the work \u201cmust be reduced to a material form (e.g. a digital file or print), as well as the author must be a \u201cqualified person\u201d (a Malaysian citizen or resident) or the work must be first published in Malaysia as pursuant to Section 10 CA;<\/p>\n<p>The CA defines \u201cauthor\u201d in Section 3 according to the nature of the work concerned. For instance, in relation to artistic work, the author is the \u201cartist\u201d; for photographs, the author is \u201cthe person whom the arrangements for the taking of the photograph were undertaken\u201d; and in other cases, the author refers to the person \u201cby whom the work was made\u201d. However, currently Malaysian law does not contain any case law and\/or statute which recognises a non-human entity (like an AI) as an \u201cauthor\u201d. Accordingly, the Malaysian position in this respect appears to be aligned with persuasive UK Supreme Court Case known as Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2024] 2 All ER 527, para [56], where the English Court had held that AI cannot be an \u201cinventor\u201d because an inventor must be a natural person;<\/p>\n<p>The extent of human involvement is a key factor in determining whether copyright subsists in AI-generated outputs. Where AI is used merely as a tool to assist human creativity (similar to software such as Adobe Photoshop), copyright may subsist in the resulting work. In Wedding Galore Sdn Bhd v. Rasidah Ahmad [2016] MLRHU 246, para [15],[28], where the High Court recognized that the use of digital tools (blurring, color enhancement) to edit photographs constituted \u201csufficient effort\u201d to satisfy the originality requirement. Consequently, the human who provides the creative prompts, selects the output, and performs significant editing would likely be recognized as the author. However, if a work is generated autonomously by AI with no human creative input, it may fail to qualify for copyright protection because there is no human \u201cauthor\u201d to whom the work can be attributed. Unlike the UK, the Malaysian CA 1987 does not currently contain a specific provision for \u201ccomputer-generated works\u201d that lacks a human author.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the main issues to consider when using artificial intelligence systems in the workplace? Have any new regulations, or guidelines, been introduced regarding AI-driven hiring, performance assessment, or employee monitoring?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are several main issues to consider when using artificial intelligence systems in the workplace as follow:-<\/p>\n<p>AI systems frequently require the collection and processing of employee personal data, including attendance records, behavioural data, location tracking, and biometric information. In Malaysia, the processing of such data is governed by the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (\u201cPDPA\u201d). Employers using AI systems must generally obtain employee consent before processing personal data and ensure that the data collected is \u201cadequate but not excessive\u201d pursuant to Section 6 PDPA. Accordingly, AI-driven employee monitoring systems must be proportionate, necessary, and implemented only for legitimate business purposes.<\/p>\n<p>AI hiring and assessment tools may unintentionally discriminate against candidates or employees based on gender, race, age, disability, or other protected characteristics if the underlying training data is biased. Employers should therefore regularly review and audit AI systems and prompts to ensure fairness and avoid discriminatory outcomes in recruitment, promotion, and workplace assessments.<\/p>\n<p>AI should not have the \u201cfinal say\u201d in life-changing decisions like termination. In Siti Hajar Jamaludin v. Celcom Axiata (M) Berhad [2020] MELRU 452, the Court noted that while an automated system suggested a rating, the company\u2019s manual \u201ccalibration process\u201d was essential to affirm the final decision (see para [14]-[16]).<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, Malaysia has taken significant steps recently to regulate AL through \u201csoft law\u201d and specialized offices:-<\/p>\n<p>In September 2024, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (\u201cMOSTI\u201d) introduced the AIGE, which set out key principles AI usage in Malaysia. The AIGE emphasizes principles such as accountability, transparency, explainability, fairness, and non-discrimination in AI systems, including those used in workplace environments.<\/p>\n<p>In December 2024, Malaysia established the NAIO as the central body responsible for coordinating AI governance, policy development, and future AI regulatory initiatives nationwide. It will eventually coordinate more formal regulations for AI-driven hiring and monitoring.<\/p>\n<p>Recent guidance from the Personal Data Protection Department also recommends that organisations conduct DPIA before implementing AI technologies involving systematic employee monitoring, behavioural analytics, or biometric data collection such as facial recognition attendance systems.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the main privacy\/data protection issues arising from artificial intelligence development and use (including training data)? Have data protection authorities issued guidelines or rulings on artificial intelligence, and what are the key takeaways?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The main privacy\/data protection issues arising from artificial intelligence development and use (including training data) are as follow:-<\/p>\n<p>AI systems frequently require vast amounts of personal data, including training data obtained from existing databases, online platforms, or user-generated content. Under the General Principle of the PDPA, personal data cannot generally be processed without the consent of the data subject. A major issue arises where personal data collected for one purpose is subsequently reused for AI training purposes without the knowledge or consent of the data subject. This issue has been highlighted in Malaysia PDPA &amp; AO Compliance: A Practical Guide discussing AI and PDPA compliance.<\/p>\n<p>The PDPA also requires that personal data be processed only for lawful purposes and that such data must be \u201cadequate but not excessive\u201d. However, AI development often relies on large-scale \u201cdata maximisation\u201d, which may conflict with the PDPA principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, AI systems are often criticised as \u201cblack boxes\u201d because individuals may not understand how AI systems process personal data or generate decisions affecting them. This may undermine the Notice and Choice Principle under the Section 7 PDPA, which requires data users to inform individuals regarding the purpose of data collection and processing.<\/p>\n<p>Further, AI systems may generate inaccurate, biased, or misleading outputs due to flawed or biased training data, including so-called \u201challucinations\u201d. However, under the Data Integrity Principle of the Section 11 PDPA, organisations must take reasonable steps to ensure that personal data processed is accurate, complete, and not misleading.<\/p>\n<p>AI systems may also make automated or semi-automated decisions in areas such as recruitment, profiling, credit scoring, or employee assessments without meaningful human intervention. This may significantly affect individuals while limiting opportunities for review, explanation, or appeal. The Personal Data Protection Commissioner\u2019s Automated Decision-Making and Profiling (\u201cADMP\u201d) Guideline emphasises the importance of human oversight and responsible implementation of automated decision-making systems.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, although Malaysia does not presently have comprehensive AI-specific legislation, Malaysian authorities have introduced several important guidelines and governance frameworks relating to AI, automated decision-making, and data protection. These include:-<\/p>\n<p>the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (\u201cAIGE\u201d) issued by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (\u201cMOSTI\u201d) in 2024;<\/p>\n<p>the Automated Decision-Making and Profiling (\u201cADMP\u201d) Guideline issued by the Personal Data Protection Commissioner;<\/p>\n<p>the Data Protection by Design (\u201cDPbD\u201d) Guideline; and<\/p>\n<p>broader initiatives coordinated through the National AI Office (\u201cNAIO\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is data scraping regulated in your jurisdiction from an IP, privacy and competition perspective? Are there recent precedents addressing the legality of data scraping for training of artificial intelligence systems?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Data scraping in Malaysia is not governed by a single statute specifically regulating scraping or AI training. Instead, its legality is determined through a combination of intellectual property, privacy, cybersecurity, and competition laws. Although there are presently no reported Malaysian decisions directly addressing scraping for AI training purposes, existing legal principles provide guidance on the issues as follow:-<\/p>\n<p>The Copyright Act 1987 (\u201cCA\u201d) may protect databases and compilations of data where sufficient intellectual effort has been expended in the selection or arrangement of the contents. Section 8(1)(b) CA recognises compilations of data as derivative works capable of copyright protection. Further, Section 13 CA grants copyright owners the exclusive right to control the reproduction of protected works. Since data scraping generally involves making digital copies of online content or databases, unauthorised scraping may potentially amount to copyright infringement. Although Section 13(2)(a) CA provides a \u201cfair dealing\u201d defence for purposes such as research or private study, it remains uncertain whether large-scale scraping for commercial AI training purposes would qualify as \u201cfair dealing\u201d, particularly where it affects the commercial value of the original database.<\/p>\n<p>The PDPA presents another significant legal consideration, particularly where scraped data contains personal data. Even where information is publicly available online, organisations may still require a lawful basis or consent (Section 6 PDPA) to process such data for new purposes, including AI training. The reuse of personal data for AI model training may therefore raise concerns relating to consent, purpose limitation, and lawful processing under the PDPA. As Section 130 PDPA makes unlawful collection a criminal offence to \u201cknowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data user, collect or disclose personal data.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Competition Act 2010 (\u201cCA 2010\u201d) regulates how dominant companies handle data. For example, if a company has a monopoly over a certain dataset and refuses to let other access it (or uses scraping to crush competitors), it could be an \u201cabuse of dominant position\u201d under Section 10 of the CA 2010. In Dagang Net Technologies Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Rayuan Persaingan [2026] 4 MLRH 448 affirmed that using exclusivity to lock users into a data ecosystem is an illegal abuse of a dominant position.<\/p>\n<p>At present, there are no reported Malaysian High Court or appellate decisions specifically determining whether web scraping for AI training is lawful. Nevertheless, existing Malaysian legal principles suggest that issues relating to copyright infringement, misuse of confidential information, personal data protection, and unauthorised system access are likely to become increasingly important in future AI-related disputes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent is the prohibition of data scraping in the terms of use of a website enforceable?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Malaysia, prohibitions against data scraping contained in a website\u2019s Terms of Use (\u201cToU\u201d) are generally enforceable through contract law, tort law, and criminal statutes as follows (please note the below mentioned is an application of existing laws in the context of data scraping):-<\/p>\n<p>A website\u2019s ToU may constitute a binding contract, particularly where users expressly accept the terms or where the terms are sufficiently brought to the user\u2019s attention. Accordingly, scraping data in breach of a \u201cno scraping\u201d clause may expose the user to liability for breach of contract. At para [71] and [76] of the High Court case of Shaifubahrim Mohd v. Em Exhibitions (M) Sdn Bhd &amp; Anor [2012] 6 MLRH 214 confirms that databases are proprietary. ToU define the boundaries of \u201cauthorised use\u201d, and exceeding them is a legal violation.<\/p>\n<p>Scraping activities carried out in breach of access restriction or website rules may potentially amount to unauthorised access under the Computer Crimes Act 1997. In Kangaie Agilan Jammany v. Pendakwa Raya [2017] MLRHU 1203 (Para [23]-[24]), the Court recognised that using a computer system contrary to internal rules or restrictions may constitute unlawful access. Similar principles may apply where scrapers bypass website restrictions, robots.txt protocols, or Terms of Use prohibitions.<\/p>\n<p>Where scraped information is confidential, proprietary, curated, or accessible only to restricted users, unauthorised scraping may also give rise to liability for breach of confidence. In Admal Sdn Bhd v. The New Straits Times Press [2012] MLRHU 1745 (Para [84]-[85]), the Court recognised that the unauthorised use of confidential business information may constitute an actionable tort.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your country have a regulator or authority responsible for supervising the use and development of artificial intelligence? What are its powers and enforcement tools?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Malaysia currently adopts a multi-regulator approach towards the supervision and governance of Artificial Intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d). While there is presently no dedicated \u201cAI Act\u201d, the regulation of AI is managed through a combination of central coordinating bodies, ethical governance frameworks, and sector-specific regulators enforcing existing legislation.<\/p>\n<p>The primary coordinating body is the National AI Office (\u201cNAIO\u201d), established in December 2024 under the Digital Ministry. The NAIO is responsible for coordinating Malaysia\u2019s national AI agenda, implementing the National AI Roadmap, and overseeing future AI policy development. However, the NAIO currently functions mainly as a policy and advisory body and does not yet possess direct statutory enforcement powers.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (\u201cMOSTI\u201d) introduced the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (\u201cAIGE\u201d) in 2024. The AIGE operates as a form of \u201csoft law\u201d by providing voluntary ethical guidance on accountability, transparency, fairness, and responsible AI usage.<\/p>\n<p>Enforcement powers presently remain with existing sectoral regulators under their respective legislation. For example:-<\/p>\n<p>(a) the Personal Data Protection Commissioner enforces the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (\u201cPDPA\u201d) and may issue enforcement notices, compound offences, and impose penalties for misuse of personal data. In this regard, pursuant to Section 130 PDPA, Enforcement Notices may be issued, compound offenses, or prosecute for data misuse. Fines up to RM500,000 and\/or imprisonment.<\/p>\n<p>(b) the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (\u201cMCMC\u201d) regulates AI-related activities within the communications and multimedia sector under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (\u201cCMA\u201d). In this regard, pursuant to Section 51 CMA, the Commission may issue directions to ensure compliance with the Act, its regulations, or license conditions. Failure to comply with a direction is an offense that can lead to significant fines or license revocation as pursuant to Section 242 CMA.<\/p>\n<p>(c) the National Cyber Security Agency (\u201cNACSA\u201d) supervises cybersecurity matters, particularly involving critical national infrastructure, under the Cyber Security Act 2024 (\u201cCSA\u201d). In this regard, Section 21 CSA empowers the Commission to issue directives as necessary for ensuring compliance with the Act, failure to comply of such can be fines up to RM500,000.<\/p>\n<p>(d) the Securities Commission Malaysia regulates AI-related activities within the capital markets sector under the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA). In this regard, Section 256ZM (1) CMSA allows the Commission to issue written directions to ensure compliance with guidelines or to protect the public interest. However, if any person who fails to comply with such a direction commits an offense as pursuant to Section 256ZM (3) CMSA.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, Malaysia\u2019s current AI regulatory framework remains largely guideline-based and sector-driven, with enforcement primarily occurring through existing privacy, cybersecurity, communications, and financial regulatory laws rather than through AI-specific legislation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How widespread is the adoption of artificial intelligence in businesses in your jurisdiction, and which sectors are leading?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Malaysia has reached a significant inflection point, transitioning from experimental interest into mainstream business integration. As of 2025-2026, the landscape is characterized by a rapid surge in adoption volume, though a \u201ccompetency gap\u201d remains between basic usage and transformative innovation.<\/p>\n<p>Recent studies in Malaysia\u2019s AI adoption paradox: 2.4 million business using AI but only 10% unlock its true power indicates that AI adoption in Malaysia surged by 35% over the past year, with approximately 2.4 million business (roughly 27% of the total business population) now utilizing AI technologies. However, while adoption rates are increasing rapidly, most Malaysian businesses remain at the early stages of AI implementation. Research suggests that approximately 73% of AI-adopting businesses primarily use AI for basic operational and efficiency purposes, such as scheduling assistants, ready-made analytics tools, customer service chatbots, and cybersecurity automation, rather than for transformative innovation or AI-driven product development. Only a relatively small proportion of businesses have integrated AI strategically into their core business models.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, based on the studies the leading sectors in AI adoption in Malaysia include:-<\/p>\n<p>Technology &amp; Professional Service (49%);<\/p>\n<p>Financial Service and Banking (42%);<\/p>\n<p>Manufacturing and Industrial Sectors (39%).<\/p>\n<p>Not only that, Malaysia is also experiencing significant AI-related infrastructure growth through investments from multinational technology companies such as Microsoft, particularly in cloud computing, AI services, and data-centre development.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is artificial intelligence used in the legal sector, by lawyers and\/or in-house counsels? Are AI-driven legal tools widely adopted, and what are the main regulatory concerns?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is used in the legal sector to improve efficiency, automate routine work, and support legal decision-making. Lawyers and in-house counsel use AI for contract drafting and review, legal research, e-discovery, compliance monitoring, and risk assessment. AI also helps legal teams analyse large volumes of documents, identify legal risks, and streamline workflows, allowing lawyers to focus more on strategic and high-value legal work rather than repetitive administrative tasks.<\/p>\n<p>The adoption of AI within the Malaysian legal sector is steadily increasing, particularly in areas such as legal research, document summarisation, contract drafting, review, and legal analysis. For example, LexisNexis has introduced Lexis Prot\u00e9g\u00e9, which is a platform to streamline legal research, drafting, and analysis. It combines generative, extractive, and agentic AI to provide secure, citation-backed results drawn from authoritative LexisNexis content. What is even more pertinent to note is that AI is no longer being used merely as a standalone drafting or research tool, but is gradually evolving into an integrated \u201cworkflow-based\u201d system that supports multiple stages of legal work in a more efficient, secure, and structured manner.<\/p>\n<p>In supplementation of the paragraph above, the usage of AI is also transcending into practice management software service providers, whereby AI is now also able to collate, analyse and generate summaries of key performance indicators for perusal and review of partners and senior management of legal firms, easing identification of growth indicators as well as practice area expansion probabilities, and formulating relevant metrics to streamline invoicing, file management and firm management as a whole. For example, practice management software service providers are actively incorporating AI into their pre-existing systems and dashboards, with a structured timeline for the introduction of AI features.<\/p>\n<p>It bears further emphasis that AI is intended to augment, rather than replace, legal professionals. AI-powered legal platforms are designed to assist lawyers by improving productivity, streamlining repetitive tasks, enhancing document and citation verification, and enabling faster access to legal information, while legal practitioners remain responsible for professional judgment, accuracy, and decision-making. This reflects the broader transformation of the Malaysian legal profession towards more technology-driven and data-oriented legal services.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the use of AI in legal practice is governed by existing professional standards and new regulatory guidelines, as borne out by the following examples:-<\/p>\n<p>There is a risk of hallucinations, relying on unverified AI-generated \u201challucinations (fake cases or laws) constitutes a breach of the duty of lawyer and can lead to professional negligence. This is supported by the case of Sri Alam Sdn Bhd v. Tetuan Radzuan Ibrahim &amp; Co [2009] 3 MLRH 249, whereby the court held that the lawyer owes a duty of care and can be held liable for professional negligence if they fail to meet the standard of a \u201creasonably competent practitioner.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Inputting sensitive client data into Public AI models risks breaching the duty of confidentiality under the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978; and<\/p>\n<p>The Personal Data Protection Department (\u201cPDP\u201d) requires that AI used for Automated Decision-Making and Profiling (\u201cADMP\u201d) must ensure accurate outputs and respect the dignity of the data subject.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the 5 key challenges and the 5 key opportunities raised by artificial intelligence for lawyers in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The 5 key challenges raised by artificial intelligence for lawyers in Malaysia are as follow:-<\/p>\n<p><strong>Professional Negligence and \u201cHallucinations\u201d:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; Lawyers have a non-delegable duty to exercise the care of an \u201cordinary competent practitioner\u201d. Relying on AI-generated \u201challucinations\u201d (fabricated cases or laws) violates this duty and can lead to liability for professional negligence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Confidentiality and Data Security:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; Inputting sensitive client data into public or unsecure AI models risks breaching the duty of confidentiality under the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978<\/p>\n<p><strong>Regulatory uncertainty:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; Malaysia does not yet have a comprehensive AI-specific statute. The current framework relies on sectoral regulation and soft-law guidelines, creating uncertainty regarding liability, accountability, and compliance obligations.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Algorithmic Bias and Transparency:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; AI systems may produce biased or non-transparent outcomes. Legal professionals may face difficulties explaining how AI-generated conclusions were reached, especially where transparency and fairness are required.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Skills and governance gaps:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; Many legal practitioners lack AI literacy and internal governance structures. Firms may struggle with implementing proper oversight, verification processes, and ethical safeguards for AI-assisted legal work.<\/p>\n<p>The 5 key opportunities raised by artificial intelligence for lawyers in Malaysia are as follow:-<\/p>\n<p><strong>Improved legal research and efficiency:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; AI allows firms to automate labor-intensive workstreams, such as document review and administrative tasks, enabling lawyers to focus on high-value strategic work and advisory work, improving overall productivity.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Advanced Legal Research:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; AI-driven semantic search allows for deeper, concept-based research that yields more relevant precedents than traditional keyword searches.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Enhanced compliance and risk management:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; AI can automate compliance monitoring, track regulatory developments, and assist in identifying legal and commercial risks proactively.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data-driven legal decision-making:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; AI tools can analyse large datasets, identify trends, and support predictive legal analytics, enabling more informed legal and business decisions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Access to Justice:-<\/strong><br \/>\n&#8211; AI tools can lower the cost of basic legal services (e.g., standard contract drafting), making legal support more accessible to SMEs and individuals who might otherwise be priced out of the market<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where do you see the most significant legal developments in artificial intelligence in your jurisdiction in the next 12 months? Are there any ongoing initiatives that could reshape AI governance?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The next 12 months are expected to be a \u201cfoundational year\u201d for AI governance in Malaysia, as the nation transitions from policy planning to institutional enforcement. The most significant legal developments in AI in Malaysia are as follow:-<\/p>\n<p>The Data Sharing Act 2025: This upcoming legislation is designed to enable secure and seamless data exchange across government agencies and potentially the private sector. It is a critical enabler for AI, as high-quality, integrated datasets are necessary to train localized AI models.<\/p>\n<p>AI Adoption Regulatory Framework: The National AI Office is tasked with delivering a formal regulatory framework to promote ethical and sustainable AI adoption. This will likely include mandatory disclosure requirements for high-risk AI applications.<\/p>\n<p>Operationalization of the Cybersecurity Act 2024: This Act will begin to set layered security requirements for &#8220;National Critical Information Infrastructure&#8221; (NCII) operators, many of whom are increasingly integrating AI into their systems.<\/p>\n<p>ASEAN AI Safety Network: Malaysia is leading the proposal for this regional network, which aims to institutionalize AI governance and ethics principles across ASEAN member states. This initiative aligns with the forthcoming ASEAN Responsible AI Roadmap (2025\u20132030).<\/p>\n<p>Overall, Malaysia\u2019s AI governance landscape is moving towards a more comprehensive and enforceable framework. The focus for 2025\u20132026 will likely be on balancing rapid AI adoption with accountability, cybersecurity, transparency, and ethical safeguards to support the country\u2019s broader \u201cAI Nation 2030\u201d vision.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">6419<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/145694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}