{"id":145794,"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=145794"},"modified":"2026-08-14T08:35:58","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T08:35:58","slug":"japan-artificial-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/japan-artificial-intelligence\/","title":{"rendered":"Japan: Artificial Intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-145794","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-artificial-intelligence","jurisdictions-japan"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Mori Hamada &amp; Matsumoto<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/03\/Firm-Logo-1.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Mori Hamada &amp; Matsumoto<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/03\/Firm-Logo-1.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 Japan<\/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>Japan\u2019s first AI-specific statute, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp\/en\/laws\/view\/5066\/en\">Act on Promotion of Research and Development, and Utilization of Artificial Intelligence-related Technology<\/a> (the \u201c<strong>AI Act<\/strong>\u201d), does not define \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d as such. Instead, it defines \u201cartificial intelligence-related technology\u201d as:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201c&#8230;technology necessary for realizing the function to substitute intellectual abilities for human cognition, inference and judgement by artificial means, and technology relating to information processing systems for realizing the function to process the input information and output that result by using the technology.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The definition is deliberately broad and technology-neutral. It is intended to capture not only AI models or algorithms themselves, but also the systems that use such technologies to process inputs and generate outputs, while leaving flexibility to accommodate future technological developments.<\/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>Yes. Japan has long pursued AI through national strategies, including the AI Strategy in 2019 and 2022. The AI Act, enacted in 2025, created a statutory framework for AI policy and established the AI Strategic Headquarters chaired by the Prime Minister. Japan\u2019s first statutory <a href=\"https:\/\/www8.cao.go.jp\/cstp\/ai\/ai_plan\/aiplan_eng_20260312.pdf\">AI Basic Plan<\/a> was adopted under the AI Act in December 2025 and now serves as the central national strategy. It focuses on accelerating AI development and use, strengthening AI safety and trust, developing domestic AI capabilities, improving public-sector AI use, and supporting international rulemaking.<\/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>Yes. Japan has adopted AI-specific legislation and guidelines, but its model remains relatively \u201csoft-law\u201d and innovation-oriented. In 2025, Japan enacted its first AI-specific legislation, the AI Act. It is characterised as a \u201cframework law\u201d that primarily sets basic principles, instructs the government to formulate the AI Basic Plan, and confers powers on the government to collect information, conduct research, provide guidance, and request cooperation, rather than imposing detailed compliance obligations on private actors. The main obligation for business operators is to cooperate with government policies, with no penalties prescribed for non-compliance.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Japan has issued several non-binding AI-related guidance documents. Key non-binding guidance includes the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.meti.go.jp\/shingikai\/mono_info_service\/ai_shakai_jisso\/pdf\/20260331_12.pdf\">AI Guidelines for Business<\/a>, which provide practical guidance for AI developers, providers and business users on governance, safety, transparency, privacy, security and accountability. Other important guidance includes the Agency for Cultural Affairs\u2019 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bunka.go.jp\/english\/policy\/copyright\/pdf\/94055801_01.pdf\">General Understanding on AI and Copyright in Japan<\/a>, which explains how existing copyright rules apply to AI training and AI-generated outputs, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry\u2019s (\u201c<strong>METI<\/strong>\u201d) <a href=\"https:\/\/www.meti.go.jp\/english\/press\/2026\/0409_002.html\">Guide on the Interpretation and Application of Civil Liability in the Utilization and Application of AI Published<\/a>, which addresses how existing tort and product liability rules may apply to AI-related harm. Existing laws\u2014including the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (the \u201c<strong>APPI<\/strong>\u201d), copyright laws, consumer protection laws, competition laws, and product liability rules\u2014also apply to AI-related activities. Key interpretive issues include the use of training data, AI-generated content, transparency, accountability, and allocation of liability for AI-related harm.<\/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>There are currently no generally applicable statutory requirements under Japanese law requiring transparency, explainability or audits in relation to AI systems. Similarly, there is no general obligation to disclose the use of AI to customers or clients merely because the technology is used in connection with the provision of a product or service.<\/p>\n<p>However, where a business operator handles personal information, the APPI may require transparency as to the purpose of use. Business operators handling personal information must specify the purpose of use as clearly as possible and, when acquiring personal information, must notify the individuals of, or publicly announce, the purpose of use. In particular, where the business operator analyses information such as an individual\u2019s behaviour or interests, the purpose of use should be specified to include not only the purpose for which the analysis results will be used, but also the fact that such analysis will be conducted.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Japan\u2019s broader soft-law framework for AI encourages transparency and explainability. For example, the AI Guidelines for Business refer to transparency as one of the common principles for actors involved in the AI lifecycle. The guidelines recommend that appropriate information should be provided to stakeholders, within a reasonable scope and to the extent necessary and technically feasible, regarding matters such as the fact that AI is being used, the scope of AI use, data collection and annotation methods, and the capabilities, limitations and appropriate or inappropriate uses of the AI system or service.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, in the context of generative AI and intellectual property, the government has published a draft of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cas.go.jp\/jp\/seisakukaigi\/titeki2\/ai_kentoukai\/gijisidai\/dai12\/sanko1-2.pdf\">Principle-Code for Protection of intellectual property and transparency for the appropriate use of generative AI<\/a> and conducted a public comment process, which closed in January 2026. As of July 2026, the draft appears to remain under consideration and has not been established. In any event, the draft does not impose generally applicable legal obligations to disclose the use of AI or to explain AI outputs. Rather, it is intended to encourage voluntary measures to enhance transparency in the use of generative AI, particularly where such use may raise intellectual property-related concerns.<\/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>There are currently no generally applicable statutory requirements under Japanese law that mandate human oversight or a human-in-the-loop mechanism. The AI Act is mainly designed to promote AI research, development and use through government-led initiatives and cooperation between the government and the private sector, rather than imposing detailed operational requirements or penalties on private entities. Accordingly, it does not require businesses to implement human oversight for particular categories of 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\">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>There are currently no generally applicable statutory requirements under Japanese law that specifically regulate algorithmic bias, discrimination or fairness-related issues in AI systems.<\/p>\n<p>While the AI Guidelines for Business are not legally binding, they expressly address fairness as one of the key principles for AI development, provision and use. In particular, the guidelines state that AI business actors should make efforts to eliminate unfair and harmful bias and discrimination against specific individuals or groups, including on the basis of gender. They also indicate that bias may arise from a broad range of factors, including algorithms, training data, the training process of AI models, prompts, reference information, external services and the behaviour of AI users. They therefore provide practical reference points for assessing and managing risks of biased or unfair outcomes in light of the characteristics and intended use of the relevant AI system.<\/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>Japan does not currently have a generally applicable statutory liability regime specifically for AI-related harm. Accordingly, liability would generally be assessed under existing legal frameworks, including tort liability under the Civil Code, product liability under the Product Liability Act, and contractual liability where there is a relevant contractual relationship.<\/p>\n<p>Under the Civil Code, any person who, intentionally or negligently, infringes the rights or legally protected interests of another person is liable to compensate for the resulting damages (Article 709). In this context, negligence generally refers to the failure to take necessary measures to prevent a foreseeable harm. Therefore, an AI deployer, developer or provider may potentially be liable in tort if its intentional or negligent conduct causes harm to a third party. The claimant generally bears the burden of proving the wrongful act or negligence, damage and causation.<\/p>\n<p>METI has published the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.meti.go.jp\/files\/000001682.pdf\">Guidance on the Interpretation and Application of Civil Liability in the Utilization and Application of AI<\/a>. Although the guidance is not legally binding and the final determination of liability remains with the courts, it may be relevant when assessing the duties of care of AI users, developers and providers. In particular, the guide distinguishes between (a) AI that merely assists or supports human judgement and (b) AI that is intended to replace, or be relied upon in place of, human judgement, and discusses how the expected responsibilities of the relevant actors may differ accordingly.<\/p>\n<p>Product liability may also be relevant where AI is incorporated into a product. Under the Product Liability Act, a manufacturer may be liable if a defect in a product infringes on the life, body or property of another person. A \u201cdefect\u201d means a lack of safety that a product should ordinarily provide, assessed comprehensively, in consideration of various factors, such as the product\u2019s characteristics and its ordinary expected use.<\/p>\n<p>Where there is a contractual relationship, such as between an AI developer or provider and the purchaser or user of the AI-enabled product or service, contractual liability may also arise if the technology fails to meet agreed performance standards or otherwise breaches the relevant contractual obligations.<\/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>There are currently no cybersecurity obligations under Japanese law that apply specifically to AI systems solely by virtue of their being AI systems. However, if a business operator handles personal information, the APPI requires it to take necessary and appropriate measures for managing the security of personal data, including measures to prevent its leakage, loss or damage.<\/p>\n<p>These measures for managing the security of personal data are generally categorised into organisational, personnel, physical and technical measures. The specific measures to be implemented should be appropriate in light of the nature and volume of the personal data, the manner in which it is handled, the risks involved, and the business operator\u2019s operational circumstances.<\/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>Currently, insurance products specifically designed for the installation or operation of AI are not yet very common in Japan. Depending on the policy terms, AI-related risks may be covered under existing insurance products, such as cyber, product liability or professional liability \/ errors and omissions (E&amp;O) policies.<\/p>\n<p>Some insurance products have also emerged that provide coverage for various costs from the use of generative AI, such as intellectual property infringement lawsuits, data leaks, and hallucination-related issues. As AI use expands, AI-related insurance products are expected to develop further as a means of distributing risks among AI developers, users and injured parties.<\/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>No. Under the Patent Act, inventors are understood to be limited to natural persons. AI cannot be named an inventor in a patent application.<\/p>\n<p>In the DABUS case, the Tokyo District Court held on 16 May 2024 that the term \u201cinventor\u201d under the Patent Act is limited to natural persons, and that any legal framework of the AI invention should be addressed through the legislative process. The Intellectual Property High Court dismissed the appeal on 30 January 2025 and upheld that position. Eventually, the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal on 4 March 2026.<\/p>\n<p>The government\u2019s Intellectual Property Rights Promotion Plan 2024 similarly takes the position that, under the conventional approach, a natural person who creatively contributes to the completion of a characteristic part of an invention should be named as the inventor. The Intellectual Property Rights Promotion Plan 2025 further states that consideration should be deepened as to how the contributions of developers of AI used in the invention process should be evaluated in connection with AI-assisted invention and creation.<\/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>Under Japanese copyright law, works generated solely by AI without human creative contribution are generally not protected by copyright. This is because a copyrighted \u201cwork\u201d must be a \u201ccreatively produced expression of thoughts or sentiments that falls within the literary, academic, artistic, or musical domain\u201d, and works autonomously generated by AI are not considered \u201ccreatively produced expression of thoughts or sentiments\u201d and are therefore not protected as copyrighted work.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, where a person uses AI as a \u201ctool\u201d and makes a sufficient creative contribution to the resulting output, the output may be protected by copyrights, and authorship would generally be attributed to that person.<\/p>\n<p>The Agency for Cultural Affairs\u2019 General Understanding on AI and Copyright in Japan issued in March 2024 discusses the copyright and authorship of works generated by\/with generative AI. According to the document, the determination of whether AI has been used as a \u201ctool\u201d hinges on two factors: the individual\u2019s \u201ccreative intention\u201d and \u201ccreative contribution\u201d. Simple or mechanical prompting alone may be insufficient. Relevant factors may include: a) the quantity and specificity of instructions and inputs (such as prompts); b) the number of generation attempts; and c) the selection, modification or arrangement of the generated outputs.<\/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>The main issues when using AI systems in the workplace include privacy, personal data protection, and general labour law compliance. Japan does not currently have AI-specific statutory rules for AI-driven hiring, performance assessment or employee monitoring. However, employers should ensure that such use complies with general requirements under labour laws and the APPI.<\/p>\n<p>For example, employers should consider whether the use of AI in personnel decisions may result in discriminatory or unfair treatment. The Labor Standards Act prohibits differential treatment with respect to working conditions based on nationality, creed or social status, as well as differential treatment in wages based on gender.<\/p>\n<p>In general, it is important to note that, in Japan, the threshold for dismissing employees is high. An employer generally cannot dismiss an employee merely because the employee\u2019s job function can be replaced by AI, unless the dismissal satisfies the strict requirements under Japanese labour law.<\/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 development (including training) and use of AI may raise issues under the APPI. Key issues include (a) specifying and notifying or publicly announcing the purpose of use, (b) using personal information within that purpose, (c) restrictions on third-party provision of personal data, (d) restrictions on collecting special care-required personal information, and (e) prohibition of improper use of personal information. In particular, the collection of special care-required personal information generally requires the data subject\u2019s consent, which may become an issue if such information is included in AI training data.<\/p>\n<p>A particularly important issue for AI development is the treatment of special care-required personal information. Under the current APPI, the collection of such information generally requires the data subject\u2019s consent, unless an exception applies. This may create practical issues where large datasets used for AI training contain, or may contain, special care-required personal information.<\/p>\n<p>The Personal Information Protection Commission (the \u201cPPC\u201d) has not issued comprehensive AI-specific guidelines. However, in June 2023, the PPC issued guidance to the ubiquitous AI research and deployment company OpenAI and also published general alerts for business operators, administrative agencies and users of generative AI services. The key takeaways are that business operators should avoid collecting special care-required personal information without consent and take measures to prevent such information from being included in data collected for machine learning.<\/p>\n<p>The 2026 amendments to the APPI, which were passed by the Diet on 10 July 2026, are intended to address, at least in part, these practical issues arising from AI development and other data uses. In particular, the amendments will introduce a framework under which consent would not be required in certain cases involving the creation of statistical information or similar outputs, subject to conditions to be specified by PPC rules. For example, this may include certain third-party provision of personal data or collection of publicly available special care-required personal information for such purposes. However, the scope and conditions of the exemption should be confirmed once the implementing rules are finalised and the amendments take effect.<\/p>\n<p>Even where AI-related data processing complies with the APPI, businesses should also consider privacy and reputational risks, particularly for use cases involving profiling and sensitive information. In practice, businesses should consider providing clear explanations regarding the purposes and scope of AI-related data use.<\/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>Copyright: Japan does not have a general fair use doctrine. Therefore, scraping copyrighted works may infringe copyright unless a statutory exception applies.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Non-enjoyment use: For AI training, Article 30-4 of the Copyright Act may permit the use of copyrighted work without the copyright holder\u2019s permission where the use does not involve the enjoyment of the work (i.e., the perception of thoughts or emotions expressed in the copyrighted work) during information processing, such as information analysis, to the extent considered necessary. \u201cInformation analysis\u201d refers to the extraction of language, sound, images or other information constituting such information from numerous copyrighted works and other vast amounts of data, and the comparison, classification and analysis of this information, which may potentially include web scraping. However, this exception does not apply if such use \u201cunreasonably harms\u201d the copyright holder\u2019s interests. The scope of this limitation remains somewhat unclear, and there are currently no court precedents directly addressing the legality of data scraping for AI training.<\/li>\n<li>Minor use: Article 47-5 may also permit the limited use of publicly available copyrighted works when providing results from computer-based searches or data analysis, as long as this use is incidental to the service being provided and necessary for its purpose. For example, offering snippets alongside URLs in search results may be acceptable under this provision. However, as also stated in Article 30-4, such use should not unreasonably harm the copyright holder\u2019s interests.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Data Protection: The APPI applies if data scraping involves the collection and processing of personal information. The fact that personal information is publicly available does not, by itself, exclude the application of the law. The key obligations of businesses handling personal information include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>specifying and notifying the data subjects, or making the purpose of collecting the personal information (typically through a privacy policy) available to the public;<\/li>\n<li>using personal information within the specified purpose; and<\/li>\n<li>not using personal information in any manner that entails the possibility of fomenting or prompting unlawful or unfair acts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>If data scraping involves special care-required personal information, such as information concerning medical history, criminal records or other information that may give rise to discrimination or prejudice, the collection of such information generally requires the data subject\u2019s prior consent, unless an exception applies. As noted above, the amendments to the APPI will introduce a limited framework under which the collection of publicly available special care-required personal information will be permitted without the data subject\u2019s consent where certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions include that the information is used only for the creation of statistical information or similar outputs, including certain AI development activities that can be characterised as such statistical processing.<\/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>The enforceability of contractual prohibitions on data scraping should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n<p>As a threshold matter, it is necessary to determine whether the website terms of use are binding on the scraper. If the data is publicly available and can be accessed without user registration, click-through consent or other affirmative assent, it may be difficult to argue that the terms are binding merely because the scraper accessed the website.<\/p>\n<p>Even if such terms are binding, clauses prohibiting scraping may not necessarily be enforceable in all circumstances. A report published by METI\u2019s Intellectual Property Policy Office in February 2022 indicates that provisions that restrict the use of copyrighted works for AI learning, where such use is otherwise permitted under the Copyright Act, could potentially be considered contrary to public policy and invalid to that extent, depending on the circumstances. However, there are currently no court precedents on this issue.<\/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>Japan does not currently have a single dedicated AI regulator. Under the AI Act, an AI Strategy Headquarters has been established within the government to coordinate national AI policy. Enforcement generally relies on existing regulatory frameworks rather than a standalone AI enforcement regime. Sector authorities enforce existing law: for example, the PPC (data protection), the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) (competition), the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) (telecommunications), and the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) (consumer protection). Their enforcement tools are those of the underlying statutes (administrative guidance, recommendations and orders), and formal penalties remain comparatively rare.<\/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>Japan was initially slower than some peer economies in adopting AI, but uptake is now accelerating rapidly and the technology is moving into mainstream business use. This shift is supported by strong and well-funded government policy. The AI Basic Plan, adopted in December 2025, makes clear that the government will promote both the deployment of AI and the strengthening of domestic AI development capabilities, including AI models and physical AI such as robotics. In parallel, under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.meti.go.jp\/policy\/mono_info_service\/ai_semiconductor_frame\/ai_semiconductor_frame.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com\">AI and Semiconductor Industrial Base Strengthening Framework<\/a> (in Japanese), the government plans to provide more than JPY 10 trillion in public support through fiscal year 2030, with the aim of inducing more than JPY 50 trillion in public-private investment over ten years.<\/p>\n<p>AI is now being actively adopted across sectors. Information and communications is among the leading sectors, while manufacturing, including automotive, electronics and machinery, is also a major area of use, particularly for automation, predictive maintenance, quality control and robotics. Financial services, healthcare, retail, logistics and professional services are also important users. The public sector is likewise deploying generative AI across ministries and agencies to improve administrative efficiency. Overall, business adoption in Japan is becoming increasingly broad-based, driven by government support, investment in domestic AI infrastructure, labour shortages and productivity needs.<\/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>AI is increasingly used by law firms and in-house legal departments for legal research, document review, contract analysis, due diligence, compliance support, litigation preparation, and knowledge management. Generative AI tools are also being used to assist with drafting and summarising legal documents.<\/p>\n<p>A key regulatory issue in Japan is the relationship between AI legal tools and Article 72 of the Attorneys Act, which prohibits non-lawyers from handling legal matters for compensation in certain circumstances. In 2023, the Ministry of Justice issued guidance on AI-based contract-related services, clarifying that whether a legal tech service violates Article 72 depends on factors such as whether the service is provided for compensation, whether the matter is a \u201clegal matter\u201d, the degree to which the tool provides legal judgment or advice, and who uses the tool. Use by lawyers or in-house counsel as a support tool, with human review of the output, is generally less problematic. As of 2026, this remains an evolving area. The rapid development of generative AI has led to further policy discussions at the government level on whether the existing framework provides sufficient predictability for new legal tech services, while still protecting users from inaccurate legal advice, hallucinations, confidentiality breaches and misuse of sensitive information.<\/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><strong>Key Challenges<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. Responsible adoption and market competitiveness: Lawyers must manage the risks of using AI, but they also face the risk of falling behind if they do not adopt it appropriately. As clients increasingly expect faster, more cost-efficient and technology-enabled legal services, lawyers need to use AI responsibly while remaining competitive.<\/p>\n<p>2. Professional responsibility: Lawyers must not over-rely on AI outputs. They remain responsible for legal analysis, professional judgment and final advice, and must implement safeguards to address hallucinations, inaccurate outputs and inappropriate use of AI tools.<\/p>\n<p>3. Security and data protection: AI use increases the risk of exposing client confidential information, trade secrets, privileged materials and personal data. Robust controls are needed for data input, vendor selection, access management, cybersecurity and compliance with the APPI.<\/p>\n<p>4. Fee models: AI may reduce the time required for routine legal tasks, creating pressure to reconsider traditional hourly billing, staffing models and fee estimates.<\/p>\n<p>5. AI governance and regulatory uncertainty: Japan\u2019s AI regime remains largely principles-based and soft-law-oriented. Lawyers must translate the AI Act, government guidelines and evolving market practice into practical internal policies, compliance programmes, governance structures and board-level oversight.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key Opportunities<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. New practice areas and service models: AI-related legal issues and shifting client needs open up new advisory work, including AI-assisted advisory packages and automated first drafts.<\/p>\n<p>2. Greater efficiency in legal work: AI can streamline routine tasks such as legal research, translation, drafting, contract review, due diligence, document review and summarisation, allowing lawyers to focus more on complex analysis, strategy and client counselling.<\/p>\n<p>3. Improved quality and consistency: Used appropriately, AI can help lawyers access large volumes of legal and factual information more quickly, identify issues, reduce manual errors and improve consistency in first drafts, contract review and internal work products.<\/p>\n<p>4. Better knowledge management: Law firms and legal departments can use AI to search and leverage internal know-how, precedents, templates, past advice, negotiation positions and regulatory updates more effectively.<\/p>\n<p>5. Improved access to legal services: Lawyer-supervised AI tools may help reduce the time and cost of routine legal work, making legal information and basic legal support more accessible while preserving the role of qualified lawyers in providing final legal advice.<\/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 most significant development will be the practical implementation of the AI Act. Japan is expected to maintain its flexible, principles-based approach, but companies should expect clearer expectations around AI governance, documentation, risk assessment, transparency and incident response.<\/p>\n<p>Privacy will also be a major focus. The Diet passed the 2026 amendments to the APPI on 10 July 2026. The amendments strengthen protections for certain biometric information and introduce stronger enforcement tools, while facilitating certain uses of personal information, including for statistical purposes. Attention will now shift to the implementing Cabinet orders, PPC rules and related guidelines, whose content will be critical in determining how the amendments apply in practice to AI development and use.<\/p>\n<p>Copyright will be another key area. Over the next 12 months, the finalisation and initial implementation of the proposed Principle-Code for Protection of intellectual property and transparency for the appropriate use of generative AI will be particularly important. The principle-code could become an important soft-law framework for disclosures concerning training data and data collection, measures to protect intellectual property, and engagement with rights holders. How AI developers and providers put it into practice will be closely watched.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, cybersecurity, frontier AI and economic security will attract greater attention. Developments such as the frontier AI model Claude Mythos, which uses advanced AI for vulnerability detection, show both the defensive potential of AI and the need for stronger governance of highly capable AI systems. It has also been reported that Japanese government and financial-sector entities may obtain access to the ultra-powerful model, making AI-related cybersecurity and economic security issues an area to watch closely.<\/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\">4986<\/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\/145794","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=145794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}