Artificial Intelligence law at Peru
Peru does not currently have a general AI Act like the EU.
Instead, AI-related issues are governed by existing laws, such as:
Ley de Protección de Datos Personales – LPDP (Law 29733)
Constitutional rights: privacy, due process, equality
Consumer protection law (INDECOPI)
Criminal law (Código Penal)
Public administration rules (digital government, transparency)
Cybersecurity policies
Below are the most relevant real-world or realistic cases showing how Peru handles AI legally.
🟦 Case 1: Facial Recognition in Public Transport (Privacy & Data Protection)
Situation:
Several municipalities tested AI-powered facial recognition cameras inside trains and buses to detect suspects and improve security.
Legal issues:
Consent & notice: The LPDP requires informing passengers how data is collected and used.
Biometric data = sensitive data, requiring strict protection.
Storage limits: Agencies cannot store facial data indefinitely.
Transparency: Citizens must know who operates the system and for what purpose.
Outcome in practice:
Municipalities were urged to implement Data Protection Impact Assessments and ensure lawful data handling. Some projects were temporarily suspended until they complied with LPDP requirements.
🟦 Case 2: AI-Based Student Evaluation Systems (Education & Due Process)
Situation:
Universities experimented with automated plagiarism detection and AI-based grading assistance.
Legal concerns:
Right to due process: Students have the right to appeal decisions.
Algorithmic bias: Automated detection sometimes flagged innocent students.
Transparency obligation: Schools must explain how the system works and provide a human review.
Application of law:
The Ministry of Education required institutions to ensure that AI does not make final decisions without human intervention, respecting students’ rights under the General Education Law.
🟦 Case 3: AI in Hiring & Recruitment (Anti-discrimination + Data Protection)
Situation:
Large Peruvian companies (banking, retail, HR firms) adopted AI screening tools for job applications.
Issues:
Algorithmic bias: AI rejected candidates based on patterns linked to age, accent, or neighborhood.
Transparency: Applicants were not told AI was screening their application.
Data minimization: CV data was kept indefinitely.
Legal response:
The Autoridad Nacional de Protección de Datos Personales emphasized that AI screening must be explained to applicants.
If AI discriminates, the employer is accountable under Peru’s anti-discrimination laws.
🟦 Case 4: Deepfake Extortion & Criminal Liability
Situation:
In Lima, scammers used AI deepfake voice cloning pretending to be family members asking for emergency money.
Legal analysis:
Under the Peruvian Criminal Code, this behavior fits:
Extorsión (extortion)
Fraude informático (cyber fraud)
Identity impersonation
Potentially psychological harm
Importance:
Even though no explicit “deepfake law” exists, prosecutors successfully use existing criminal categories to punish AI-assisted crimes.
🟦 Case 5: AI Medical Diagnostic Tools (Health Regulation + Liability)
Situation:
Hospitals tested AI systems to assist in diagnosing diseases from X-rays or CT scans.
Legal issues:
Medical responsibility: Doctors remain responsible for final decisions.
Accuracy standards: AI tools must comply with medical device regulations.
Data protection: Medical images are highly sensitive.
Outcome:
Regulators required hospitals to treat AI software as a medical device requiring testing, traceability, and human supervision to avoid malpractice claims.
🟦 Case 6: AI Chatbots in Banking (Consumer Rights)
Situation:
Banks deployed AI chatbots to provide financial advice.
Legal challenges:
Wrong or misleading advice = consumer rights violation.
Transparency: Banks must inform customers they are talking to AI.
Data security: Chatbots collect financial data → must follow LPDP.
Result:
Banks were instructed to document chatbot usage, notify users, and allow them to switch to a human agent.
🟦 Case 7: Automated Traffic Ticketing (Due Process)
Situation:
Cities in Peru implemented AI cameras to automatically issue traffic tickets.
Issues:
Right to contest: Drivers must be given access to evidence.
Algorithm accuracy: Wrong readings lead to unlawful fines.
Administrative transparency: Decisions must include explanation, not only “AI detected it.”
Legal application:
Municipalities must provide human review, respecting administrative due process standards.
🟦 Summary of How Peru Handles AI Legally
| Area | Legal Basis | Key Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy & biometric data | Law 29733 (LPDP) | Consent, security, transparency |
| Discrimination | Constitution + Labor Law | AI cannot produce biased decisions |
| Consumer protection | INDECOPI | Accurate info; no misleading AI systems |
| Criminal law | Código Penal | AI-assisted crimes still punishable |
| Public administration | Government transparency laws | AI cannot replace due process |
| Health | Medical device regulations | Human supervision + safety standards |
RELATED Blog
comments