AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK)
AI ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
[Organisation Name]
[Organisation Address]
Effective Date: [Effective Date]
Version: 1.0
1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This AI Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") governs the use of artificial intelligence tools, generative AI systems, large language models, AI-assisted software, and automated decision-support tools (collectively "AI Tools") by employees, contractors, and other authorised users of [Organisation Name] (the "Organisation").
1.2 AI Tools offer significant productivity benefits but also present material risks in the areas of data protection, intellectual property, accuracy, professional standards, and equality. This Policy is designed to enable the Organisation to benefit from AI Tools while managing those risks responsibly and in compliance with applicable law.
1.3 This Policy operates alongside the Organisation's Acceptable Use Policy, Data Protection Policy, Information Security Policy, and any sector-specific compliance frameworks applicable to the Organisation's activities. It must be read in conjunction with those documents.
1.4 This Policy is made in the context of the Organisation's obligations under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Equality Act 2010, and applicable employment law.
2. Approved AI Tools
2. APPROVED AI TOOLS
2.1 Employees may only use AI Tools that have been approved by the Organisation following an assessment of their data protection compliance, security standards, and contractual terms. The currently approved AI Tools are: [Approved AI Tools].
2.2 Use of any AI Tool not on the approved list for work purposes — including using personal accounts on otherwise approved platforms, using free-tier versions of tools that do not include enterprise data protection commitments, or using newly released AI tools without prior assessment — is prohibited.
2.3 Employees wishing to use a new AI Tool not currently on the approved list must submit a request to the IT or compliance team for assessment before use. Approval will be contingent on the tool meeting the Organisation's data protection, security, and contractual requirements.
2.4 The Organisation will update the list of approved AI Tools periodically as new tools are assessed and approved. Employees will be notified of updates to this Policy.
3. Data Input Restrictions
3. DATA INPUT RESTRICTIONS
3.1 The following categories of data must not be entered into any AI Tool, whether approved or unapproved: [Prohibited Data Categories].
3.2 Employees must anonymise or use fictional data when testing AI Tools or using them for tasks that do not require real data. The use of real personal data, client data, or confidential information for testing or demonstration purposes is prohibited.
3.3 Where an approved AI Tool is used and the Organisation has verified that the tool's data processing agreement satisfies the requirements of Article 28 of the UK GDPR, employees may process data in the categories permitted by that agreement, subject always to the data minimisation principle — only the minimum data necessary for the purpose may be entered.
3.4 Employees must be aware that, unless the Organisation has confirmed in writing that a specific AI Tool does not use input data for model training, any data entered into an AI system may be used to improve the AI model and may not be fully deletable. Employees must not enter any data that would be harmful or embarrassing to the Organisation, its clients, or any individual if it were retained and potentially disclosed.
4. Permitted Uses
4. PERMITTED USES
4.1 Subject to all other provisions of this Policy, employees may use approved AI Tools for the following categories of task: [Permitted Use Cases].
4.2 All use of AI Tools must comply with the Organisation's wider Acceptable Use Policy and all applicable laws. Use of AI Tools to circumvent the Organisation's security controls, to generate discriminatory or harmful content, or to create or distribute misinformation is prohibited.
4.3 Employees remain personally responsible for the quality, accuracy, and appropriateness of any work they produce or deliver, regardless of whether AI Tools were used in its creation. The use of an AI Tool does not reduce the employee's professional responsibility for the output.
5. Accuracy and Human Review
5. ACCURACY AND HUMAN REVIEW
5.1 AI systems, including large language models, may produce outputs that are plausible in appearance but factually incorrect, legally inaccurate, or otherwise misleading (commonly referred to as 'hallucinations'). Employees must not rely on AI-generated factual claims, legal citations, statistics, or references without independently verifying them from authoritative sources.
5.2 The following AI-generated outputs require mandatory human review by a qualified person before use: [Human Review Scope].
5.3 Human review must be substantive: the reviewer must satisfy themselves that the AI-generated content is accurate, appropriate, and fit for purpose, not merely that it has been read. A record of the review, including who conducted it and when, should be retained in accordance with the Organisation's document retention policy.
5.4 Employees in regulated professions must comply with any additional accuracy, review, or disclosure obligations imposed by their professional regulatory body in respect of AI-assisted work.
6. Automated Decision-Making
6. AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING
6.1 [Automated Decision Policy].
6.2 The Organisation must not use AI Tools to make or recommend decisions on the basis of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, including age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity. Any AI system used in a decision-making context must be assessed for potential bias before deployment.
6.3 Where AI Tools are used to support employment-related decisions — including recruitment, performance management, redundancy selection, or disciplinary proceedings — the decision must be made by an accountable human manager, and the employee affected must be able to seek an explanation of the decision from a human representative.
7. Intellectual Property
7. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
7.1 [Ip Position]
7.2 Employees must not use AI Tools in a way that reproduces, paraphrases, or incorporates substantial portions of third-party copyrighted works without appropriate attribution or licence. Where AI-generated content is suspected of reproducing third-party material, employees must seek guidance from the legal or compliance team before using or publishing the output.
7.3 Employees must not use AI Tools to generate or assist in creating content that infringes the trade marks, database rights, or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
8. Enforcement
8. ENFORCEMENT AND DISCIPLINARY CONSEQUENCES
8.1 Breach of this Policy will be dealt with [Enforcement Approach].
8.2 Conduct that may constitute gross misconduct under this Policy includes: entering personal data or client confidential information into an unapproved AI Tool in breach of the UK GDPR; using AI Tools to generate or distribute discriminatory, defamatory, or harmful content; using AI Tools to circumvent the Organisation's security controls or to assist in criminal activity; and deliberately misrepresenting AI-generated content as original human work in a context where that misrepresentation causes loss or harm.
8.3 Breach of this Policy may also result in the suspension of the employee's access to approved AI Tools pending investigation, and may require notification to the Information Commissioner's Office or other regulators where a personal data breach has occurred.
9. Policy Review
9. POLICY REVIEW AND UPDATES
9.1 Given the rapid pace of change in AI technology and regulation, this Policy will be reviewed at least every six months and updated as necessary to reflect new AI Tools, changes in applicable law, regulatory guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office, and evolving best practice.
9.2 Employees will be notified of material changes to this Policy and will be required to acknowledge the updated Policy before continuing to use AI Tools.
9.3 This Policy is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Any dispute arising under or in connection with this Policy shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I acknowledge that I have read, understood, and agree to comply with the AI Acceptable Use Policy of [Organisation Name] (version 1.0, effective [Effective Date]). I understand that breach of this Policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including summary dismissal.
User / Employee
________________
Signature
Authorised Signatory (on behalf of {{organisationName}})
________________
Signature
What Is a AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK)?
An AI Acceptable Use Policy in the United Kingdom sets out the standards, responsibilities, and procedures the organisation expects everyone to follow, and is governed by the Data Protection Act 2018.
For organisations in England and Wales, an AI Acceptable Use Policy operates within a legal framework that, while not yet containing AI-specific primary legislation, imposes significant obligations through existing law. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 regulate the processing of personal data by AI systems, including requirements for transparency, lawful basis, data minimisation, international transfer restrictions, and the right not to be subject to solely automated significant decisions (Article 22). The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 governs the ownership and infringement implications of AI-generated content. The Equality Act 2010 applies to AI-generated decisions or recommendations that disadvantage individuals with protected characteristics. In regulated sectors, the Financial Conduct Authority's Consumer Duty, the Solicitors Regulation Authority's professional standards, and sector-specific frameworks impose additional obligations on the accuracy and appropriateness of advice and outputs.
The policy sits alongside the organisation's wider information security and data protection frameworks and provides specific, practical guidance on the novel risks that AI tools present — including data leakage when confidential information is input into third-party systems, hallucination and accuracy risks, intellectual property uncertainty, and the erosion of human judgment in professional workflows.
The legal framework governing the AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK) in United Kingdom draws on several key statutes and regulatory bodies. Under the Companies Act 2006, Companies House maintains the register of UK companies. Section 386 of the Companies Act 2006 sets accounting record obligations. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) enforces the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates financial services under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The High Court of Justice has jurisdiction under the Senior Courts Act 1981. Parties executing a AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK) in United Kingdom should confirm the document reflects current law, including any amendments enacted since the original drafting date. The Companies Act 2006 sets the foundational requirements.
When Do You Need a AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK)?
An AI Acceptable Use Policy has become essential for virtually every UK organisation whose employees have access to the internet, because generative AI tools are now freely available and widely used — often without employer awareness or approval. Organisations that have not established clear rules for AI use face a significant and growing risk of data protection breaches, intellectual property disputes, professional standards failures, and reputational harm from inaccurate AI-generated outputs.
The policy is particularly urgent in the following contexts. Where employees handle personal data as part of their role — which includes most office-based functions such as HR, finance, legal, sales, and customer service — the risk of inadvertent personal data transfer into unapproved AI systems is immediate and serious. Where the organisation operates in a regulated sector such as financial services, healthcare, law, or education, AI-generated advice or decisions may need to satisfy specific accuracy, explainability, and audit trail requirements. Where the organisation creates original content — including marketing copy, software code, research reports, or client documentation — the intellectual property implications of AI-assisted creation must be clearly governed. Where the organisation makes decisions affecting individuals — including performance reviews, redundancy selection, or credit assessments — the use of AI in those decision-making processes must comply with UK GDPR Article 22 and the Equality Act 2010.
The policy should be implemented as soon as employees begin using or are likely to begin using AI tools, and should be reviewed at least every six months given the pace of change in AI capabilities and the evolving regulatory environment.
Parties in United Kingdom should prepare a AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK) proactively rather than waiting for a dispute to arise. Courts interpret agreements based on the written terms rather than oral representations. Under the Companies Act 2006, Companies House maintains the register of UK companies. Section 386 of the Companies Act 2006 sets accounting record obligations. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) enforces the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates financial services under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The High Court of Justice has jurisdiction under the Senior Courts Act 1981. Where the transaction involves regulated activities, prior approval from the relevant authority may be required before execution.
What to Include in Your AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK)
A well-drafted AI Acceptable Use Policy for a UK organisation should address the following key elements.
The approved tools list specifies which AI tools employees are authorised to use, the categories of task for which each is approved, and the process for requesting approval of new tools. This prevents ad hoc adoption of unassessed AI systems.
The data input restrictions clause defines what categories of data may and may not be entered into AI systems. At minimum, personal data (as defined by Article 4 UK GDPR), confidential business information, client data, and legally privileged information should be prohibited from input into unapproved AI tools. For approved tools, the policy should specify what data classification levels are permitted.
The human review requirements specify which categories of AI output must be reviewed by a qualified human before use — for example, all client-facing documents, legal instruments, financial reports, medical recommendations, and any output that will be relied upon in a decision affecting an individual's rights or interests.
The intellectual property clause addresses ownership of AI-generated content and prohibits use of AI tools in ways that may infringe third-party copyright. It should also specify the organisation's position on disclosure when AI tools have been used to create deliverables.
The accuracy and hallucination warning explains the risk that AI systems produce plausible but incorrect outputs and requires employees to verify all factual claims, statistics, legal citations, and references independently before relying on them.
The prohibited uses clause lists categories of AI use that are prohibited — such as using AI to make autonomous employment decisions, to generate discriminatory content, or to circumvent the organisation's information security controls.
The monitoring and audit trail clause specifies the organisation's right to monitor AI tool usage logs and the employee's obligation to maintain records of significant AI-assisted outputs.
Additional compliance elements for a AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK) used in United Kingdom include: Under the Companies Act 2006, Companies House maintains the register of UK companies. Section 386 of the Companies Act 2006 sets accounting record obligations. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) enforces the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates financial services under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The High Court of Justice has jurisdiction under the Senior Courts Act 1981. Forms-legal.com provides this template as a starting point for United Kingdom-compliant documentation.
Sources & Citations
Statutory citations link to official government sources.
- GDPR Article 22EU – GDPR
Cite this page
Reference this free template in an article, syllabus, or research note:
Forms Legal. (2026). AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK) (United Kingdom) [Legal document template]. Forms Legal. https://forms-legal.com/uk/business/policies/ai-acceptable-use-policy-uk
"AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK) (United Kingdom)." Forms Legal, 2026, https://forms-legal.com/uk/business/policies/ai-acceptable-use-policy-uk.
@misc{formslegal-ai-acceptable-use-policy-uk,
author = {{Forms Legal}},
title = {AI Acceptable Use Policy (UK) (United Kingdom)},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://forms-legal.com/uk/business/policies/ai-acceptable-use-policy-uk}},
note = {Free legal document template. Based on Companies Act 2006}
}
Frequently Asked Questions
The United Kingdom does not yet have a single detailed AI-specific statute equivalent to the EU AI Act. Instead, AI use in the workplace is governed by a patchwork of existing legislation that applies regardless of whether decisions or outputs are generated by humans or machines. The most significant framework is the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Where an AI tool processes personal data — which is almost always the case when employees input client names, email addresses, health information, or financial data into a generative AI system — the organisation as data controller must confirm there is a lawful basis for that processing, that it is transparent, that the data is not transferred outside the UK without adequate safeguards, and that appropriate technical and organisational measures protect the data. Article 22 of the UK GDPR gives individuals the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, which is particularly relevant where organisations use AI to make hiring, performance management, or disciplinary decisions. Copyright law under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is also directly relevant: the copyright status of AI-generated outputs and the risk that AI tools may reproduce third-party copyrighted text without attribution creates both infringement risk and uncertainty about who owns the output.
Uncontrolled employee use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, or other large language models creates several categories of serious risk for UK organisations. The first and most immediate is data protection risk. When an employee pastes client data, personal information, confidential business strategy, or financial projections into a third-party AI tool, that data is typically processed by the AI provider on servers that may be located outside the United Kingdom. Unless the organisation has a data processing agreement with the AI provider that satisfies the requirements of Article 28 UK GDPR, and unless that transfer is protected by adequate safeguards under Chapter V UK GDPR, the organisation has likely committed a breach of data protection law. The Information Commissioner's Office has made clear that organisations remain responsible for data they share with AI providers. The second category of risk is intellectual property risk. AI-generated text, code, or images may reproduce substantial portions of third-party copyrighted works without acknowledgement. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 does not yet clearly resolve who owns AI-generated output, creating uncertainty about whether the organisation can assert copyright in materials produced with AI assistance.
Whether employees may use personal AI accounts for work tasks is among the most practically significant questions for UK organisations in 2024 and 2025, and the answer depends on the type of data being processed and the organisation's risk appetite. The core legal issue is that when an employee uses a personal AI account — such as a free or personal-subscription ChatGPT account — for work tasks, they are processing data on a platform that the organisation has not assessed, approved, or entered into a data processing agreement with. For most UK organisations, using personal AI accounts to process any work data that includes personal data will be a breach of the UK GDPR, because the organisation as data controller cannot demonstrate that it has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect that data, as required by Article 32. The organisation also cannot exercise the oversight and control over processing that Article 28 requires when appointing a data processor. Some organisations permit the use of personal AI accounts for purely non-confidential, non-personal work tasks — for example, drafting a generic template letter using only hypothetical details. However, the boundary between permitted and prohibited use is difficult for employees to judge in practice, which is why many organisations implement a blanket prohibition on personal AI accounts for work tasks and instead provide approved enterprise-grade AI tools with appropriate data processing agreements in place.
Organisations in England and Wales that permit employees to use AI tools should establish mandatory human review requirements for AI-generated outputs before those outputs are used in any external communication, client-facing document, legal instrument, financial report, or decision affecting an individual's rights. The requirement for human oversight is grounded in several legal and professional obligations. Under the UK GDPR Article 22, where an AI system contributes to a decision that produces legal or significant effects for an individual — such as a credit decision, a job application outcome, or a medical recommendation — there must be meaningful human review, not merely a rubber stamp. In regulated sectors, the Financial Conduct Authority's Consumer Duty and the Solicitors Regulation Authority's professional standards require that advice given to clients is accurate, appropriate, and has been checked by a competent professional. Beyond legal obligations, the practical reality of AI hallucination — where large language models produce confident but factually wrong outputs — means that any AI-generated factual claims, statistics, citations, or legal references must be independently verified before use. A well-drafted AI Acceptable Use Policy should specify which categories of output require review, by whom, and what the review process should include.
The appropriate approach for UK organisations is to maintain a curated list of approved AI tools that have been assessed against the organisation's data protection, security, and contractual requirements, rather than permitting open-ended use of any AI tool employees may encounter. The assessment process for approving an AI tool should include: reviewing the provider's terms of service and data processing agreement to confirm they satisfy Article 28 UK GDPR requirements; verifying the location of data processing and ensuring adequate transfer safeguards (such as UK adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses) are in place for any processing outside the UK; assessing the tool's data retention and deletion practices, including whether input data is used to train future AI models; and reviewing the tool's security certifications, such as ISO 27001 or SOC 2 Type II. Enterprise versions of major AI tools — such as Microsoft 365 Copilot, Google Workspace with Gemini, or enterprise ChatGPT — are frequently preferred because they include contractual commitments that input data will not be used for model training and that data will be processed within agreed geographic boundaries. The AI Acceptable Use Policy should specify the approved tools, the categories of task for which each tool is approved, and the process for requesting approval of new tools as the AI environment continues to evolve rapidly.
This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change over time. Consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.Full disclaimer
Found an error? Let us knowRelated Documents
You may also find these documents useful:
Acceptable Use Policy (UK)
Define the rules and expectations for using your organisation's IT systems, networks, and digital resources with a detailed Acceptable Use Policy for England and Wales. This template addresses compliance with the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR, and relevant employment law obligations. It covers permitted and prohibited activities, internet and email use, social media conduct, data handling, monitoring rights, and enforcement procedures.
Data Processing Agreement — UK GDPR (England & Wales)
Create a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) fully compliant with UK GDPR Article 28 and the Data Protection Act 2018 for England and Wales. This template covers all mandatory Article 28(3) processor obligations, ICO registration, sub-processor authorisation with prior notice, UK IDTA provisions for international transfers outside the UK, technical and organisational security measures under Article 32, personal data breach notification timelines, data subject rights assistance, DPIA support, audit rights with advance notice, and data deletion or return obligations. Includes controller ICO registration details, special category data provisions, and automatic termination with the principal services agreement. Governing law: England and Wales. Download as PDF or Word.
Privacy Policy (UK)
Create a detailed UK Privacy Policy compliant with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018. This template covers data controller identification, ICO registration, lawful bases for processing, data subject rights, cookies under PECR, international data transfers, data retention, and breach notification. Suitable for websites, apps, and online services operating in England and Wales. Fill in your organisation's details, preview in real time, and download as PDF or Word.
Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) (UK)
Protect your confidential business information in England and Wales with a legally sound Non-Disclosure Agreement. Whether you are sharing trade secrets with a prospective partner, disclosing proprietary technology to a developer, or presenting financial projections to a potential investor, a properly drafted UK NDA keeps your sensitive information under strict legal protection. Our template is drafted in accordance with English common law and incorporates the key provisions required for enforceability in England and Wales.