Italy adopted the first national law on artificial intelligence

Italy became the first country to adopt a comprehensive law on artificial intelligence (Law 132/2025), effective 10 October 2025, complementing EU Regulation 2024/1869. The law restricts professionals (e.g., lawyers, consultants) to using AI only for auxiliary tasks, requiring disclosure to clients of any AI use. Judges must retain full decision-making authority. Copyright is reserved for human-created works, including those made with AI assistance, if stemming from human intellectual effort. Text and data mining are allowed under the Berne Convention’s three-step test. New penalties address unauthorized AI-based reproductions and “deepfakes,” with imprisonment of up to five years for unlawful dissemination.

Italy is the first country to adopt a law on the protection of AI (Law 132/2025), which came into force on 10 October 2025. The legislation is based on and integrates EU Regulation 2024/1869, adopted on 13 June 2024. Among the noteworthy changes is the introduction of obligations for those in intellectual professions (including lawyers and consultants). These individuals may only use AI to perform instrumental activities; the intellectual work of the professional must be predominant. In addition, the professionals must inform their clients, in clear language, if they use artificial intelligence systems (and, it would seem, also what these systems are and how they are actually applied). About judicial activity, the legislation ‘reserves’ to the magistrate all decisions “on the interpretation and application of the law, the assessment of facts and evidence, and the adoption of measures.” There is therefore scope for the use of AI, but this appears to be limited to purely instrumental aspects (e.g., summarizing the facts in the drafting of the judgment). However, there is a complete lack of provisions on transparency, which would seem highly advisable given the extremely sensitive nature of the activities carried out by judges.

Regarding intellectual property, the law modifies the definition of “intellectual works.” The latter must be of “human” origin; works created by humans with the aid of AI tools may also be protected by copyright, “provided that their creation derives from the intellectual work of the author.” The provision does not establish how this type of creation is to be evidenced and assessed and likely, this will be the subject of future court cases looking to determine whether and what burden of proof must be met to demonstrate sufficient creativity. With reference to the exception of Text and Data Mining, the law says that reproductions and extractions from works or other materials contained on the internet or in databases to which one has legitimate access can be carried out for the purpose of extracting text and data through artificial intelligence models and systems, including generative ones, however without prejudice to the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. There seems to be a reference to the three-steps-test provided under Art. 9.2 of the Convention (the reproduction should not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author).

Finally, the law introduces two interesting criminal provisions. The first one aims at improving copyright protection, establishing that a fine ranging from €51 to €2,065 shall be applied to anyone who, without being entitled to do so, for any purpose and in any form, “reproduces or extracts text or data from works or other materials available on the internet or in databases in violation of Articles 70-ter and 70-quater, including through artificial intelligence systems.” With regard to deep fakes, the law punishes the unlawful dissemination of content generated or altered using artificial intelligence with imprisonment for a term of between one and five years. The offense is punishable upon complaint by the offended person. However, proceedings shall be brought ex officio if the act is connected with another offense for which proceedings must be brought ex officio or if it is committed against a person who is incapable due to age or infirmity, or a public authority because of the functions exercised.