Stay in the know
We’ll send you the latest insights and briefings tailored to your needs
Spain is subject to the EU AI Act. It does not have a standalone, comprehensive regulation exclusively dedicated to AI, but has developed a framework through policy initiatives, specialised bodies, and sector-specific laws. Key components include the AI Strategy Spain 2024, together with the Spanish Agency for the Supervision of Artificial Intelligence (AESIA), and the AI Regulatory Sandbox. Various technology-neutral Spanish laws may also apply to entities who develop and use AI (for example, relating to data protection and privacy, intellectual property law, equality and employment law). Case law, including resolutions from relevant supervisory authorities, is also shaping the legal environment, especially in data privacy and employment law.
Spain's AI policy is established through:
Spain's forward-looking digital strategy, Digital Spain 2026 (España Digital 2026), includes various AI initiatives:
The government has also adopted various plans for promoting AI literacy and ethical use. The National Digital Skills Plan describes an initiative to train citizens and professionals in AI-related skills, promote STEM talent, and ultimately reduce the digital divide, while the National Plan for Algorithmic Bias Supervision provides guidelines on active monitoring and audits to prevent discrimination and correct biases in AI systems to foster transparency, public trust, and to protect vulnerable groups from automated decisions. |
Spain is subject to the EU AI Act. Read more about this Europe-wide regulation on the EU page here. Additionally:
From consumer protection law to online safety, AI continues to stretch existing legal frameworks. See the latest updates below.
Law 19/2013 on transparency, access to public information, and good governance establishes a framework for transparency in public sector activities in Spain and facilitates citizens' access to information. It ensures access to information about algorithmic systems used in administrative decision-making, though transparency may be limited in practice due to public security, intellectual property, trade secrets, and personal data protection.
Transparency is outlined further under Law 40/2015 on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector, which requires transparency in algorithms used by the administration and promoting automation in administrative processes with human oversight, while Law 39/2015 on Common Administrative Procedure grants citizens further rights to understand how algorithms affect decisions impacting them and mandates disclosure of AI use in public procedures.
Explore the latest landmark rulings as AI-related disputes make their way through the courts.
AEPD sanctioning procedure resolution (resolution no. PS-00482-2023) on 3 December 2024, Football Club Atlético Osasuna Case. On 3 December 2024, the football club Osasuna was fined €200,000 by the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) for using a facial recognition system at the El Sadar stadium during the 2022-2023 season. The AI system allowed club members who voluntarily opted in to access the stadium using AI-based (RBR) facial recognition technology, while traditional access methods remained available. Osasuna has announced intent to appeal the fine to Spain´s National Court (Audiencia Nacional), arguing that the AEPD based its decision on outdated facial recognition technologies and not the specific system implemented by the club, and noting that the Spanish National Intelligence Agency´s National Cryptologic Center (CCN-CNI) recommended using access control systems based on RBR biometric templates for high-security settings (also in December 2024).
Sentence of the National Court(Audiencia Nacional) on 30h April 2024 (appeal no. 51/2022), BOSCO Case: This case revolved around transparency and access to algorithms used by the Public Administration in Spain. The Civil NGO requested access to the source code of BOSCO, an algorithm determining eligibility for the electricity social voucher. The Administration denied this request on grounds of security, data protection, and intellectual property. After initial court rulings, the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) upheld the Administration´s reasoning in April 2024 and further established that access to the source code was not necessary to fulfil the necessary transparency goal, and that its disclosure could undermine the system’s security as it could expose vulnerabilities susceptible to exploitation, endangering the integrity of the system and associated data. An appeal from the Civil NGO has been filed with the Spanish Supreme Court.
Judicial decree 2/2024 of the High Court of Justice (Tribunal Superior de Justicia) in Navarra on 4 September 2024 (judicial decree no. 17/2024), Misuse of AI by Lawyers Case. On 4 September 2024, the High Court in Navarre ruled on the legal responsibility of a lawyer who included in a legal complaint a citation from the Colombian Criminal Code, allegedly due to improper use of a generative AI tool. The court highlighted the need to use such tools with due diligence; no sanctions were imposed on the lawyer.
AEPD appeal for reversal (recurso de reposición) (resolution no. PS-00553/2021) on 28 April 2023, GSMA Ltd, a global event company, oversaw the 2021 Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona. Among other activities, GSMA processed the personal data of those attending the event. GSMA Ltd was fined €200,000 in 2023 by the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) for using a facial recognition system without complying with the requirements set out in the GDPR. Specifically, the AEPD sanctioned the company organising the event for not having carried out, prior to the start of the data processing, the impact assessment required by the regulations. No public information is available as to whether GSMA challenged or not the AEPD resolution in court.
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only and may not be current as at the date of accessing this publication. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.
© Herbert Smith Freehills 2025
We’ll send you the latest insights and briefings tailored to your needs