Japan Eases AI Rules to Attract Big Tech, Contrasting South Korea’s Approach
The implementation of South Korea’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Basic Act has garnered significant global attention, marking the world’s first comprehensive AI law addressing both risks and opportunities.
Overseas AI industries have expressed concerns that the hasty enforcement of the AI Basic Act could trap South Korea’s AI sector in a regulatory quagmire, hindering technological advancement. A representative from a Japanese AI startup remarked, “South Korea’s implementation of the AI Basic Act is a globally unprecedented case. While the government’s establishment of standards to create safeguards has positive effects, in a situation where related technologies evolve daily, it could become a shackle for startups leading innovation.” The concern is that legal frameworks failing to keep pace with technological progress might turn protective measures into obstacles.
Japan’s Self-Regulatory Approach
In contrast, Japan has adopted a guideline-based self-regulatory approach. In June of last year, Japan enacted the “Act on the Promotion of Research, Development, and Utilization of Artificial Intelligence-Related Technologies (AI Promotion Act)”, prioritizing risk management through guidelines and advisory measures over sanctions. By permitting commercial use of AI training data and maintaining low regulatory barriers, Japan aims to attract global big tech firms.
This approach is analyzed as a lesson from Japan’s past “Galápagos syndrome”, which refers to isolation due to excessive regulation. While short-term regulations protected domestic companies, they ultimately caused Japan to fall behind global technological trends. Foreign firms abandoned the Japanese market due to stringent regulations, while domestic companies lost global competitiveness by developing “Japan-only” products tailored to local laws.
Concerns Over Regulatory Compliance
A global legal consultant warned, “While South Korean AI companies focus their energy on compliance issues, competitors like Japan could narrow or even reverse the technological gap.” Industry stakeholders are also closely watching the AI Basic Act’s “extraterritorial application” clause, which states that even entities without a business presence in South Korea could face regulation if their actions affect domestic users. The consultant added, “Overseas companies are closely monitoring how sub-laws under the AI Basic Act will be concretized.”
Comparative Global Perspectives
The European Union (EU) enacted the AI Act in 2024, establishing a robust regulatory framework, but has repeatedly delayed its full implementation due to pushback from global big tech and industrial realities. The United States, meanwhile, maintains a self-regulatory stance prioritizing industrial competitiveness, leaning toward regulatory relaxation.
