Asia's Leading Law & Technology Review

Tag: China

Catherine Shen: Legal Tech in China – When “Cheap, Good, Fast” Is Not Always a Trade-Off

Reading time: 8 minutes

Written by Catherine Shen | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

In 2025, the author visited some well-known technology giants and legal tech companies in Beijing and Shenzhen, and conducted background research of the legal tech space in China[1] as part of the trip preparation. The article summarises some key observations and takeaways from that experience. Given the size and diversity of China’s market, any generalisation should be treated with caution. Readers should keep this in mind while reading the article. 

Introduction

At a panel discussion on AI governance attended by the author in November 2025, one speaker (who cannot be named on account of the Chatham House Rule) referenced the common law of business balance “cheap, good, fast: pick two” to describe divergent global approaches to AI governance. Yet this familiar business adage does not always hold true in China. From consumer goods such as running shoes[2] and electric vehicles[3] to advanced technology such as AI models,[4] Chinese companies now routinely deliver products that are affordable, high-quality and rapidly iterated. Chinese brands are no longer dismissed as cheap knockoffs and are giving their established international counterparts a run for the money.[5]

Legal tech is no exception. Traditionally, legal services (not just in China) have been conservative, risk-adverse and harder to commoditise. Thus, it would not be a surprise if the legal industry remained rooted to the cheap-good-fast trade-off.  The legal profession has also been comparatively slower in technology adoption compared to most other industries, at least before the emergence of generative AI. Yet, China’s legal tech scene is vibrant for its breadth of products, technical depth, speed of execution and commercial sophistication. Several structural conditions may have made this possible.

The Landscape of AI Regulation in the Asia-Pacific

Reading time: 32 minutes

Written by Alistair Simmons and Matthew Rostick | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

Introduction

In recent months, many jurisdictions in the Asia-Pacific (“APAC”) have adopted or are considering various forms of AI governance mechanisms. At least 16 jurisdictions in APAC have begun some form of AI governance, and this number will likely continue to increase. This paper scans the different AI governance mechanisms across a number of APAC jurisdictions and offers some observations at the end. 

This paper segments AI governance mechanisms into four categories: Direct AI regulations are enforceable rules that regulate the development, deployment or use of AI directly as a technology, and consequently have regulatory impact across multiple sectors. Voluntary frameworks cover voluntary and non-binding guidance issued by governmental entities that directly address the development, deployment or use of AI as a technology. Indirect regulations (data & IP) are also enforceable legal rules but do not regulate the development, deployment or use of AI directly as a technology. They are rules of more general applicability that nevertheless have an impact on the development, deployment or use of AI. As the scope of this category is potentially broad, we have focused on data protection/privacy and intellectual property laws in this paper. Sector-specific measures refers to binding and non-binding rules and guidelines issued by sector regulators that are relevant to the development, deployment or use of AI in an industry. To avoid getting bogged down in the specifics of whether the rules and guidelines are technically binding or not, we have presented them together. Unlike the mechanisms addressed in the Sectoral Governance Mechanisms segment, the non-binding frameworks in this segment typically address the use of AI across multiple sectors.

For avoidance of doubt, this paper addresses legal governance mechanisms only. There may be other initiatives afoot to drive alignment and good practices from a technical perspective. We do not seek to address technical measures in this paper.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén