152-FZ and local AIwhat the law actually requires — and where the boundary runs between an engineer's job and a lawyer's
The topic attracts simplifications: "it is banned", "it is allowed", "it does not apply to a foreign company". Here is what the current text of the law requires and how it affects the choice between an external API and deployment inside your perimeter.
What is most often understood wrongly
These four statements come up in customer conversations more than any others.
Russian law contains no separate ban on using generative models. The restriction concerns data rather than technology: if a request carries personal data, you are sending it abroad and article 12 applies — cross-border transfer with its own notification procedure.
Access to the services themselves is a separate matter: blocking individual resources is an access regime, not a ban on the method. Confusing the two is the most common mistake.
Basis: article 12 of 152-FZ (cross-border transfer), not a ban on the technology.
Localisation and cross-border transfer are two different requirements. Part 5 of article 18 answers the question "where is the data first recorded and stored": the recording, systematisation, accumulation, storage, updating and retrieval of Russian citizens' data must use databases located in Russia.
Transfer abroad afterwards is not prohibited — it is governed by article 12 and needs a separate procedure. A ban on using a foreign database as the primary one and a permitted transfer abroad are not the same thing.
Basis: part 5 of article 18 and article 12 of 152-FZ are separate rules with separate consequences.
The test is not the country of registration but whether Russian citizens' data is collected deliberately. A foreign service working for a Russian audience falls under the same regime as a Russian company.
Practice confirms it: the mechanism for restricting access to resources that breach data-processing requirements has been applied to services with no Russian entity.
Basis: part 5 of article 18 of 152-FZ (collection test, not jurisdiction) and article 15.5 of 149-FZ (access restriction mechanism).
Both the notification of personal data processing and the notification of intent to carry out cross-border transfer are filed by the operator — the organisation processing data for its own purposes. A model or cloud provider does not become the operator of your processing.
If you send customer data to an external service, the notification duty is yours, not theirs.
Basis: article 22 and part 4 of article 12 of 152-FZ define the duty holder as the operator.
Which format fits your scenario
The table shows the logic of the choice, not a final legal conclusion. The rows are typical scenarios that come up in assessment.
| Scenario | Personal data | What it changes | Reasonable format |
|---|---|---|---|
| Search across internal documents | Usually none, if the texts hold no data about people | The key risk is trade secrets, not 152-FZ | External API acceptable; a perimeter for closed documents |
| Customer support assistant | Yes: names, phone numbers, message threads | Localisation of primary recording and the cross-border procedure | On-premise deployment removes the transfer question |
| CV screening | Yes, often an extended set | The decision affects subject rights — transparency required | Perimeter; external services only after a risk assessment |
| Healthcare, biometrics | Special categories | The strictest regime, separate processing grounds | Perimeter only, no transfer abroad |
| Analytics without identification | Depends on whether re-identification stays possible | Anonymised data falls outside the personal data regime | To be clarified with your lawyer on the data set |
The "personal data" column is a starting point, not a conclusion: the answer depends on the data set and the purposes of processing.
What local deployment solves — and what it does not
Solves
- Primary recording and storage happen on your infrastructure — the technical side of part 5, article 18 is met
- There is no cross-border transfer: requests never leave the perimeter, so the article 12 procedure is not triggered
- Access control, logging and data egress stay in your area of responsibility, not the provider's
- No dependency on a vendor changing prices or terms
Does not solve
- Compliance is not automatic: policy, consents, processing notification, impact assessment and organisational measures are separate work
- It does not replace a legal opinion on your case
- It does not cover model security: prompt injection, leakage through output, incorrect answers
- It does not remove the operator's duties — they stay with you wherever the server sits
- It does not protect you if data entered the perimeter without a lawful basis
What changed on 1 March 2023
If an external service stays in the architecture, the revised article 12 governs it. The procedure in brief.
Assessment before the first transfer
The operator assesses how the recipient ensures confidentiality and security of the data. The law sets no methodology — the operator decides how to run and document it.
Notification to Roskomnadzor before transfer begins
The notification is filed before the first transfer and covers the operator, the grounds and purpose, categories of data and subjects, the list of countries and the assessment date.
Adequate-protection countries and the rest
The list of states providing adequate protection is approved by Roskomnadzor. Transfers to those states may proceed once the notification is filed; transfers elsewhere wait for review — as a general rule ten working days.
The regulator may restrict the transfer
In the cases set by law Roskomnadzor may restrict or prohibit a transfer. The transfer then stops and data already received must be destroyed by the recipient.
What people ask most
Is a model request personal data if I do not include a full name?
Personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual. A phone number, an email address, a contract number, or a combination of job title and department may allow identification. Practice treats a combination of technical data as potentially relating to a subject.
So the answer depends on what the request actually carries, not on how it is worded.
Is a server in Russia enough to be compliant?
No. Localisation is one requirement among several. You also need a lawful basis, a publicly available policy, a processing notification, security measures and an impact assessment. The server addresses the technical part only.
Must we notify Roskomnadzor if data never leaves Russia?
The processing notification is a separate operator duty unrelated to cross-border transfer. It applies whenever personal data is processed, subject to the exceptions listed in the law. The cross-border notification applies only if there is a transfer.
What happens if we transfer data abroad without notifying?
These are separate offences: failure to provide information, and processing in cases not provided for by law. Administrative penalties for personal data violations were raised substantially on 30 May 2025, with separate increases for data breaches.
Beyond fines, there is the mechanism for restricting access to a resource — it has been used against services with no Russian entity.
Can a local model help if data has already gone abroad?
No. Deployment in a perimeter prevents future transfers but does not undo duties arising from past ones. If an earlier transfer lacked a notification, the matter is resolved legally, not by moving infrastructure.
Must an employee consent to their data being processed in an AI system?
Processing an employee's data for new purposes needs a separate basis and proper notice. A blanket "consent on hiring" for any future scenario is not sufficient — that is a question for your legal team and HR documents.
Let us look at the technical side of your scenario
Describe what data the requests carry, where it is stored now and what the outcome should be. We will tell you which delivery format covers the technical part of the requirements — and where the area begins in which you need your lawyer, not us.
batony@agent.qq.comThis material reflects 152-FZ and subordinate legislation as in force on 3 November 2026. Legislation changes: check the current text and consult your legal team before deciding.