Processes voice recordings, in Italy

Codice penale, art. 615-bis · Read the law's page

• Do not, by means of visual or sound recording instruments, unduly procure news or images concerning private life taking place in the places indicated in Article 614.
• Do not reveal or disseminate, through any means of public information, the news or images obtained in that way.

Codice penale, art. 617 · Read the law's page

• Do not fraudulently take cognizance of a telephone or telegraph communication or conversation between other persons, or in any case not directed to you, and do not interrupt or prevent it.
• Do not reveal, through any means of public information, all or part of the content of such communications or conversations.

Codice penale, art. 617-bis · Read the law's page

• Do not, outside the cases the law permits and in order to take cognizance of a telephone or telegraph communication or conversation between other persons, or in any case not directed to you, or to prevent or interrupt it, procure, hold, produce, reproduce, distribute, import, communicate, deliver, make available to others or install apparatus, instruments or parts of them suitable to intercept, prevent or interrupt such communications or conversations.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Arts. 5, 50 — directly applicable in Italy as EU Member State

• Do not place on the market, put into service, or use an AI system for social scoring.
• Do not use real-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement purposes, except within narrow exceptions the law allows.when it serves a public body
• Do not place on the market, put into service, or use an AI system that exploits individuals' vulnerabilities.
• Tell users, before or at the start of an interaction, that they are communicating with an AI system.
• Mark generated image, video, audio and text output in machine-readable form as artificially generated.

D.Lgs. 8 giugno 2001, n. 231, art. 25-vicies, inserted by D.Lgs. 9 settembre 2026, n. 160, art. 15 · Read the law's page

• This article binds entities covered by Decreto Legislativo 231/2001: it adds the offences in articles 437-bis and 612-quater of the Codice Penale to those for which the entity itself answers with financial and disqualification sanctions (art. 25-vicies).

D.Lgs. 9 settembre 2026, n. 160, artt. 16-20 · Read the law's page

• If you are sued for damage caused in the use of an AI system, and the claimant presents facts and elements that make the claim plausible, produce on the court's order the evidence specifically relevant to how the system works, including the logs under Article 12, the risk-management documentation under Article 9, the relevant technical documentation under Article 11 and the human-oversight information under Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; the order is limited to what is necessary and proportionate, and the court protects trade secrets and confidential information (art. 17, commi 1 to 4).
• If you hold such evidence as a third party to the action, produce it on the same terms (art. 17, comma 1).
• If the damage derives from a breach of an obligation under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and you contest the causal link between the breach and the damage, prove the contrary, because the link is presumed (art. 18, comma 1).
• Do not treat compliance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, even if certified under Chapter III, Section 5, as of itself excluding your liability (art. 19).
• If a person intending to sue asks whether liability insurance covers the damage, answer within thirty days with the existence and particulars of the contract and the insurer's name (art. 20, comma 1).

Schema di decreto legislativo recante attuazione della direttiva (UE) 2024/2853, Atto del Governo n. 434 · Read the law's page

• The draft treats software as a product, except free and open-source software that you develop or supply outside a commercial activity (Art. 115(2)(d) as proposed).
• If you develop, produce or make a product, software included, or have it designed or made, or present yourself as its manufacturer by putting your name, trade mark or another distinguishing feature on it, you answer as its manufacturer for the damage a defect in it causes (Arts. 115(3)(i) and 116(1)(a) as proposed).
• Keep supplying the software updates and upgrades needed to maintain safety while the product is under your control: a defect due to software, a related service or a missing safety update is not excused because it arose after you placed the product on the market (Art. 118(2) as proposed).
• Meet the product safety requirements that apply to your product, cybersecurity requirements relevant to safety included: they count in deciding whether it is defective (Art. 117(2)(f) as proposed), and failing a mandatory safety requirement meant to protect against the damage suffered presumes it defective (Art. 120(2)(b) as proposed).
• Account for what your product learns or acquires after release: the effect of its ability to keep learning or to acquire new functions is weighed in deciding whether it is defective (Art. 117(2)(c) as proposed).
• Be ready to produce the relevant evidence you hold when a court orders it on a plausible claim: failing to do so presumes the product defective (Arts. 119(1) and 120(2)(a) as proposed).
• If you manufacture outside the Union, the importer, your authorized representative or, failing both, the logistics service provider answers for the product alongside you (Art. 116(1)(c) as proposed).
• If you substantially modify a product outside its original manufacturer's control and then make it available on the market or put it into service, you are treated as its manufacturer (Art. 116(2) as proposed).
• If you distribute a product, or provide an online platform that lets consumers conclude distance contracts with traders, identify the economic operator or your own supplier within one month of the injured person's written request, or you answer for the defective product (Art. 116(3) to (5) as proposed).
• Be able to show that you did not place the product on the market or put it into service, or that it is probable the defect did not exist then (Art. 118(1)(a) and (c) as proposed).