Mexico Expands AI Use Amid Fragmented Regulation

Mexico continues to incorporate AI in public, private, and daily processes, although it does not yet have a unified national law governing this technology. This transitional stage offers an opportunity to incorporate lessons from other jurisdictions and anticipate regulatory gaps. 

Mexico’s regulatory position aligns with a broader global process in which governments evaluate how to manage AI while supporting innovation. The European Union follows a risk-based model that establishes strict obligations for developers and providers through the AI Act. The United States applies a sectoral strategy that favors flexibility and incremental oversight. In Latin America, Peru has enacted a law with phased implementation, while El Salvador prioritizes innovation with limited regulatory intervention.

Mexico operates AI through dispersed legal instruments that were not originally designed for autonomous systems or algorithmic decision-making. These instruments include data protection rules, intellectual property provisions, and emerging judicial criteria. As a result, obligations exist but remain spread across multiple regulations. This structure reflects an early regulatory phase in which practice precedes legislation.

The reform to Mexico’s Federal Law on Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties requires organizations to inform individuals when automated systems generate decisions that involve personal data. The regulation also requires clear channels for objection, which affects companies that implement AI to support operational workflows, classification models, or automated assessments.

A recent judicial decision validated the use of an AI tool to calculate the amount of a legal guarantee, provided that a human supervised the process. The criterion demonstrates an early acceptance of AI as a technical resource while preserving human responsibility in legal proceedings.

Intellectual property authorities have adopted a similar position on authorship. The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property denied copyright protection for autonomously generated content, consistent with international positions that require human involvement for recognition of authorship. 

Adoption across industries continues to expand. Companies in financial services, retail, health, logistics, and manufacturing apply AI to support decision-making and automate high-volume tasks. However, the absence of a comprehensive AI law creates uncertainty for long-term compliance planning, liability allocation, and documentation requirements.

Legislative discussions reflect these operational conditions. The Senate has convened specialists, industry representatives, and public institutions to evaluate potential regulatory frameworks. Although global models provide reference points, participants say that Mexico must design a structure aligned with its legal system and technological context to establish responsibilities for developers, providers, and users, while maintaining competitiveness.

As adoption accelerates, organizations must strengthen governance practices to oversee automated systems, verify data flows, and document AI performance. Companies remain responsible for compliance with data protection rules, professional duties, and transparency requirements.