Nintendo has publicly denied claims that it lobbied Japan’s government to regulate generative AI after politician Satoshi Asano alleged the company was “engaging in lobbying activities” to influence policy. In its official statement, the company said“Nintendo has not had any contact with the Japanese government about generative AI” and added that it would “continue to take necessary actions against infringement of our intellectual property rights.”
Asano deleted his post and apologised for not verifying his information before sharing it. For a studio that rarely comments on rumours, Nintendo’s swift denial showed how seriously it takes misinformation involving AI and creative ownership.
Nintendo’s Careful Position on Generative AI
President Shuntaro Furukawa told shareholders that“generative AI can be used in creative ways” but warned that the company must avoid “potential issues with intellectual property rights.” He also explained that Nintendo doesn’t “need generative AI to make games” because its developers already have decades of creative expertise and refined production methods.
Those comments underline that Nintendo isn’t rejecting AI entirely but intends to use it only when it strengthens, rather than replaces, its long-established creative process.
When Mario Kart World Sparked AI Speculation
In May 2025, fans spotted odd billboard textures in Mario Kart World footage and assumed the images were AI-generated. Nintendo quickly clarified that“AI-generated images were not used in the development of Mario Kart World”, confirming that every visual was created manually by artists.
The incident demonstrated how easily AI speculation can spread online and how proactive Nintendo has become in protecting the perception of its creative integrity.
How the Rest of the Industry Is Using AI
A recent survey revealed thatmore than half of Japanese game companies, including Capcom and Level-5, are already using AI tools for scripting, environment design, and asset creation.
Major publishers in the West have also adopted automation, with studios noting that AI helps to“streamline production and enhance creativity” by reducing repetitive design tasks and freeing developers to focus on storytelling.
Nintendo’s decision to resist that rush reinforces its belief that quality and personality come from human-driven artistry, not code.
Why the Swift Denial Matters
Industry watchers described Nintendo’s position as“more nuanced than outright opposition”, suggesting the company is exploring AI cautiously rather than rejecting it completely. The immediate denial also prevented the lobbying rumour from painting Nintendo as anti-technology while reaffirming its image as a careful innovator.
This approach fits a pattern seen throughout Nintendo’s history: it studies new technology quietly and introduces it only when it serves gameplay, not hype.
Keith’s Take: Nintendo Should Lead the AI Conversation
Nintendo’s denial was necessary, but relying on quick corrections will not be enough as AI continues to reshape the industry. The company should outline how it plans to use the technology internally, even if it’s limited to localisation, testing, or texture optimisation, to eliminate confusion before it starts.
Players respect Nintendo’s focus on creativity, but that trust also depends on communication. By setting expectations early, the company can remain both transparent and true to its identity.
The Bottom Line
Nintendo’s firm response shut down the AI lobbying story before it spread, but it also showed how closely fans and media now watch its every move. While competitors automate large parts of development, Nintendo’s human-first philosophy still feels authentic and refreshing.
By speaking clearly about its stance, the company could prove that innovation and tradition can coexist. In a world where misinformation travels faster than a blue shell, clarity remains Nintendo’s most powerful move.
