LCQ20: Regulating operation of intelligent robots
*************************************************
Question:
It has been reported that the political and business sectors in Hong Kong have successively introduced intelligent robots for work, and there are also members of the public carrying robot dogs to public places for "dog walking". Recently, a local information technology expert was injured by being stepped on by a robot; in Tseung Kwan O, a cyclist narrowly avoided a collision with other bicycles while watching a robot dog strolling around. There are views pointing out that the above incidents have raised public concerns about the safety hazards posed by intelligent robots and robot dogs (collectively referred to as "robots"), as well as the illegal collection of personal data by cameras equipped on such robots. Given that currently there is no specific legislation regulating the application of robotics in Hong Kong, and their use is only required to comply with the applicable legislation involving the relevant sectors or scenarios, there are views that if a robot injures a person while operating autonomously or without human control, the victim may have no means to seek redress. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) under existing laws, in cases where a robot causes injury to a person while operating under human control and without human control respectively, of the respective liabilities of the operator, owner, programmer, manufacturer and importer, and how to determine whether such liabilities are criminal or civil;
(2) whether there is currently any legislation or regulatory requirement in Hong Kong mandating the purchase of third party liability insurance for the use of robots (whether for private or commercial purposes) in public places; if so, of the relevant applicable provisions, the scope of coverage and the minimum sum insured;
(3) whether the Government has reviewed if the following loopholes exist in the existing regulatory regime: (i) there is no specific legislation regulating the use of consumer-grade robots in public places; (ii) it is difficult to prosecute autonomous robots for injuring people, thereby creating a legal vacuum; (iii) it is difficult to trace robots under anonymous or cross-border control; (iv) there are inadequate safety standards and accountability mechanisms for robots purchased through cross-border e-commerce; and (v) there is a lack of registration, identification and traceability systems for robots;
(4) if loopholes exist in the existing regulatory regime, whether the Government has assessed their impact on prosecution and compensation; whether the Government will draw on the legislative experience of other places such as the European Union, South Korea and the Mainland to expeditiously introduce tiered regulation, public consultation, mandatory procurement of third party liability insurance, mandatory registration and restrictions on application scenarios for robots; if so, of the specific timetable and policy directions; if not, the reasons for that; and
(5) given that the Department of Justice has established the Inter-Departmental Working Group to Review Legislation to Support Wider Application of AI, whether the Working Group will review the laws regulating robots; if so, of the priority items, work progress and expected completion time of the review, and whether its scope covers third party liability insurance, determination of liabilities and tiered regulation?
Reply:
President,
Regarding the question raised by Professor the Hon Priscilla Leung, upon consulting the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, the Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau, the Development Bureau, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (FSTB), the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice (DoJ), our response is as follows:
(1) to (4) Robotics is intended to advance societal progress, serve the people and benefit mankind. While Hong Kong currently has no specific legislation governing the application of robots, such projects must comply with the rules and regulations applicable to relevant sectors or scenarios. At the same time, many of the existing laws in Hong Kong are formulated under a technology-neutral principle, providing a legal basis for addressing the risks and illegal acts related to applications of technology. On this premise, the Government encourages innovations by researchers, developers and the market, in an agile manner, to provide technical proposals including a variety of intelligent and robotic solutions that meet the needs of different users.
In respect of cross-border products and online shopping platforms, the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) conducts surveillance of various types of products in the market and online shopping platforms from time to time, and maintains close intelligence exchanges with relevant law enforcement agencies of the Chinese Mainland. The C&ED and cross-boundary electronic commerce platforms also proactively establish dedicated communication mechanism for exchanges and enhanced compliance promotion.
As for third party liability insurance arrangements, currently there is no statutory requirement in Hong Kong mandating the purchase of third party liability insurance for using intelligent robots for private or commercial purposes. Should the Government stipulate such statutory requirement in future, the FSTB and the Insurance Authority will liaise with the insurance industry to provide relevant insurance products.
The Government will continue to monitor the development and application of robotics technology, and to refine relevant policies drawing on the experiences in Chinese Mainland and overseas as appropriate, with a view to balancing the technological development and regulation in relation to robots.
(5) AI is the "brain" of robots. It endows robots with cognitive, learning, and decision-making abilities, while the robots are the portrait of AI physically. In this regard, most ethical and regulatory standards pertinent to AI are applicable to projects involving robotic technology. For example, the Government's Ethical AI Framework and its revision tackling the development of generative AI technology have covered the ethical principles, governance framework and risk assessment of AI, providing guidance for relevant technological applications including the use of AI in robots.
The Government considers that society must take a candid and proactive approach to the possible risks and necessary regulatory requirements that may arise from the development and application of AI (including intelligent robots and embodied intelligence technologies). It is essential to strike a balance between promoting development and mitigating risks, so as to enable the society to fully harness AI's potential benefits while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of all stakeholders impacted by the use of AI.
To evaluate whether the laws under different policy areas can keep pace with technological developments (including AI), the Secretary for Justice convened a Steering Committee meeting on March 6 for the establishment of the Inter-Departmental Working Group to Review Legislation to Support Wider Application of AI (Working Group). Establishing a Working Group with its core members comprising representatives from different policy bureaux and government departments (B/Ds) is crucial for addressing issues arising from the rapid development and widespread application of AI. The role of the DoJ is to help B/Ds keep a sharp focus in conducting a critical review of the areas of law under their policy responsibility.
At present, B/Ds have already commenced study on their respective policies or work purview. After collating and consolidating their preliminary views, the DoJ may then be in a better position to co-ordinate and provide the necessary collaboration for the benefit of the Working Group in conducting the substantive review and in mapping out its overall advancement strategy. The goal is for B/Ds to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth review of existing laws to identify loopholes or deficiencies, before exploring targeted and practicable solutions (including considering the need for, and feasibility of, enacting bespoke legislation or implementing administrative measures) in light of Hong Kong's actual circumstances. As the relevant work has only just commenced, it is therefore not feasible to provide further information on particular issues, the prioritisation of items and the estimated completion timeframe of the review by the Working Group. However, the Working Group will endeavour to complete the preliminary study as soon as practicable by closely collaborating with B/Ds.
Ends/Wednesday, May 20, 2026
Issued at HKT 15:55
Issued at HKT 15:55
NNNN