Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts of Law in Mexico

In the case, a trial judge ordered a deposit of 50,000 pesos per property in dispute as a guarantee; however, the methodology used to determine this amount was not explained. Upon reviewing of the decision, the TCC concluded that such amounts must be established based on clear, objective, and verifiable criteria, rather than arbitrarily. To illustrate this, the TCC used an AI tool designed to perform calculations based on official data, such as property values, inflation, interest rates, and the estimated duration of the trial.

The result was a lower guarantee amount with greater justification, supported by a transparent and auditable methodology. The AI was exclusively limited to mathematical operations.

In this regard, the TCC determined that when using AI tools in judicial proceedings, judges must observe the following minimum elements:

• Proportionality and Safety: AI should only be used when necessary and appropriate for legitimate purposes.
• Protection of personal data: It must be ensured that the use of AI does not compromise the personal data contained in the file.
• Transparency and explainability: Judges using AI must be able to explain the methodology, data used, and how the result was reached, to allow the procedure to be audited and understood.
• Human supervision: AI must operate solely as an auxiliary tool; deliberation and decision-making in Courts must remain exclusively human.

Although this is a non-binding precedent, it marks a turning point by establishing criteria that judges and lawyers before Courts can consider in the use of AI. Companies involved in litigation in Mexico could face rulings supported by these tools, so it is recommended they understand the principles established by these criteria, anticipate strategies, and ensure that their defenses demand respect for this and future precedents. Our firm has also commented on the issues presented by AI algorithms, (Smart decisions?: How to Detect and prevent bias in AI), a situation that is now being analyzed in criteria from the perspective of recognizing transparency and the applicability of AI systems.

Similarly, the TCC has pointed out that, in the absence of regulation in Mexico, international standards should be used as a reference. This approach suggests that future national regulations could align with standards such as the European AI Regulation, which, like this precedent, limits AI tools to an auxiliary role under human supervision and decision-making. Consequently, companies are advised to integrate these principles into their corporate use of AI now, to facilitate a neat transition to the regulatory framework that will eventually be adopted in Mexico.

For companies, the message from this approach is clear: the use of AI is here to stay and will be subject to increasingly strict standards. At Hogan Lovells, we support our clients in the agile and strategic adaptation of AI, turning each regulatory advancement into an opportunity for innovation and compliance. Our firm has a dedicated team for developing policies and procedures in this area, anticipating national and international standards that we make available to you.

Authored by Guillermo Larrea, Marino Castillo, and Victoria Villagomez.