Artificial Intelligence law at Latvia
1. Criminalisation of Deepfake Use in Elections (2024)
Latvia passed a law criminalizing the use of AI-generated or AI-manipulated content (“deepfakes”) intended to influence elections.
Legal provision: Producing or distributing deepfake content to misrepresent candidates or parties during elections.
Penalty: Up to five years in prison, or probation/community service.
Implications: Even if no court has yet convicted anyone, this law makes Latvia one of the first EU countries to directly criminalize the use of AI-generated misinformation in politics.
Significance: AI-generated content is treated as a tool of crime, similar to fraud or libel, demonstrating how AI interacts with existing criminal law.
2. AI-Generated Child Pornography Case (2025)
A case involved a person using an AI-based image generator to produce explicit images of minors by manipulating existing images.
Legal classification: Child pornography, even though the images were AI-generated and no real child was involved.
Outcome: Prosecuted under existing child sexual abuse material laws.
Significance: Shows that Latvian law currently focuses on the harmful outcome, not the technology. AI is treated as a method rather than a separate legal category.
3. High-Risk AI in Financial Services
Latvia is implementing EU AI Act rules for high-risk AI systems in finance:
Example: Banks using AI for credit scoring or loan approval.
Requirements: Risk assessment, transparency, human oversight, and reporting incidents like wrongful denial or discrimination.
Implications: Even before any lawsuits, financial institutions are legally obliged to implement these safeguards. Future court cases could arise if AI decisions cause harm to customers.
Significance: Prepares a legal framework for future AI liability cases in finance.
4. AI Use in Public Administration
Latvia issued guidelines for AI deployment in state institutions:
Scenario: A social welfare office uses AI to prioritize applications for benefits.
Requirements: Transparent algorithms, human oversight, and ethical use of data.
Implications: Misuse could lead to administrative challenges or human-rights complaints.
Significance: Introduces accountability and risk mitigation in public AI deployment, even if no formal court cases exist yet.
5. Intellectual Property and AI-Generated Works
Latvia is exploring how copyright and patent law apply to AI-generated works:
Scenario: An AI creates artwork or software code.
Legal question: Who owns the output — the programmer, the user, or the AI itself?
Status: No court has fully decided yet; scholars debate whether AI can be considered an “author” or “inventor.”
Implications: Future disputes over AI-created content could go to court, affecting IP law, contracts, and ownership rights.
Significance: Highlights the need for legal adaptation in IP law due to AI.
6. AI and Privacy Violations
AI systems used for surveillance or processing personal data could violate privacy laws:
Scenario: An AI system scans public areas to identify individuals without consent.
Legal basis: Data protection and human-rights laws.
Potential outcomes: Administrative fines or criminal liability if data protection violations occur.
Significance: Even in absence of direct court rulings, the law treats AI as subject to existing privacy frameworks, showing proactive regulation.
✅ Summary
Latvia’s AI law combines criminal law, administrative guidelines, and sector-specific rules.
Most examples today are legislative or regulatory actions, but they anticipate court cases.
Key areas of AI law in Latvia:
Deepfake use in elections → criminal liability
AI-generated child pornography → treated under existing criminal laws
High-risk AI in finance → regulatory compliance
AI in public administration → accountability and transparency
Intellectual property disputes → future legal cases
Privacy violations via AI → administrative or criminal action
Latvia is setting the stage for future AI litigation, even if traditional court cases are still limited.
RELATED Blog
comments