Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.
Act on Promotion of Research and Development, and Utilization of Artificial Intelligence-related Technology (Act No. 53 of 2025)
Japan's first AI-specific statute establishes basic principles and a governmental framework for promoting AI research, development and use. It creates an AI Strategy Headquarters under the Cabinet, requires the government to adopt an AI Basic Plan, and provides for guidelines, information gathering and investigation of cases where AI infringes rights, together with guidance to businesses and the public. Businesses are asked to cooperate with government measures; the Act contains no fines or prohibitions.
In force 4 Jun 2025Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Durchführung der KI-Verordnung (KI-Marktüberwachungs- und Innovationsförderungsgesetz, KI-MIG)
The draft implementation act designates the Bundesnetzagentur as the central market-surveillance authority and single point of contact under the EU AI Act, keeps sector regulators (financial supervision, data protection for law-enforcement uses) competent in their fields, sets the national penalty framework within the Regulation's ranges and creates a national AI regulatory sandbox and an AI service desk for companies.
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust (AI Basic Act, Act No. 20676)
Korea's AI Basic Act is a comprehensive framework statute combining industrial promotion with trust and safety rules. It gives a legal basis for a national AI master plan every three years and the National AI Committee, supports R&D, data, standardisation and SMEs, and imposes duties on operators of high-impact AI (risk management, explanation, human oversight) and transparency duties to notify users of generative AI output. Foreign operators above a threshold must designate a domestic representative. It was promulgated in January 2025 and took effect on 22 January 2026 after a one-year grace period.
In force 22 Jan 2026Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Government of Alberta Artificial Intelligence Usage Policy
Lets Alberta public servants use AI responsibly, within a list of approved AI platforms and use cases kept by the Ministry of Technology and Innovation; non-compliance can lead to discipline under the Public Service Act.
In force 1 May 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
人工智慧基本法 (Artificial Intelligence Basic Act) – draft approved by the Executive Yuan, July 2024
A framework act setting seven principles for AI development and use, requiring the government to promote AI research, talent and infrastructure, to establish a risk-classification framework and safety standards, to protect personal data, labour and consumers, to provide for liability, disclosure of AI-generated content and non-discrimination, and to designate competent authorities by sector, with the NSTC coordinating.
Adopted 15 Jul 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
BC Public Service policy on the use of generative AI
Bars BC public servants from entering confidential or personal information into public generative-AI tools, allows it only in tools covered by the government's Microsoft agreement when signed in with a government account, and requires staff to verify outputs.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Buenos Aires Province Decree 742/2026: Provincial framework for the development, use and governance of artificial intelligence
Decreto 742/2026, Marco Provincial para el Desarrollo, Uso y Gobernanza de la Inteligencia Artificial
Sets the framework for AI in the provincial public sector, including risk and impact assessment and human oversight of decisions affecting rights. The Undersecretariat of Digital Government enforces it; it creates a provincial AI register and invites municipalities to adhere.
Adopted 6 Jul 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Calabria Regional Law No. 4 of 2 February 2026 on the use of artificial intelligence systems in the region
Legge regionale 2 febbraio 2026, n. 4, "Disposizioni concernenti l'impiego di sistemi di intelligenza artificiale in ambito regionale"
Governs the use of AI in the regional administration, with human review, data protection and transparency; sets up a health-AI pilot programme, a voluntary regional register of AI developers and a regional AI Office.
Adopted 2 Feb 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California AI Transparency Act (SB 942, as amended by AB 853)
Covered providers of generative AI systems must offer a free AI-detection tool and embed disclosures and provenance data in AI-generated content. AB 853 (Chapter 674, Statutes of 2025) moved the operative date to 2 August 2026 and added duties for large online platforms and generative-AI hosting platforms.
Applies from 2 Aug 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 813: Independent verification organizations for AI (Chapter 179, Statutes of 2026)
The Government Operations Agency must, by 1 January 2028, set up a process to designate and oversee independent verification organisations that assess AI models and applications. The law does not require any developer to use one.
Adopted 9 Sep 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 1119: Companion chatbots: children's safety (Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026)
Operators must carry out a documented, child-focused risk assessment before releasing a new or substantially modified companion chatbot, from 1 July 2027, and commission child-safety audits by 1 January 2029 or before first public release if later. The Attorney General must set up a public incident-reporting mechanism by 1 January 2028.
Applies from 1 Jul 2027Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 243: Companion chatbots (Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025)
Operators of companion chatbots must disclose that the chatbot is AI and maintain a protocol for responding to suicidal ideation and self-harm that refers users to crisis services. Users known to be minors get break reminders and protection from sexual content. Annual reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention begin 1 July 2027, and a person injured by a violation can bring a civil action.
Adopted 13 Oct 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California Privacy Protection Agency regulations on automated decision-making technology, risk assessments and cybersecurity audits
Regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act on automated decision-making technology (ADMT), risk assessments and cybersecurity audits. Businesses that use ADMT to make significant decisions about consumers must comply from 1 January 2027, with further deadlines phased into 2028.
Applies from 1 Jan 2027Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act
SB 53 requires "large frontier developers" (developers of the most compute-intensive models above statutory thresholds) to publish a frontier AI framework describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, publish transparency reports when deploying new frontier models, report critical safety incidents to the California Office of Emergency Services, and protect employees who report safety concerns. It also directs creation of a public computing cluster ("CalCompute").
Applies from 1 Jan 2026Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California AB 2013: Generative artificial intelligence: training data transparency (Chapter 817, Statutes of 2024)
Developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians must post documentation of the data used to train them on their websites, including summaries of the datasets, whether they include copyrighted material, whether they were purchased or licensed, and whether they include personal information.
Applies from 1 Jan 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Colorado Senate Bill 26-189: Automated Decision-Making Technology (replacement of the Colorado AI Act)
SB 26-189 replaces the Colorado AI Act's regulation of "high-risk" AI systems with duties that attach when automated decision-making technology materially influences a consequential decision about a Colorado consumer in areas such as employment, lending, housing, education, healthcare, insurance and government services. It drops the earlier duty of reasonable care, the mandatory risk-management programme, impact assessments and Attorney General notification, and substitutes advance notice to the consumer, disclosure after an adverse outcome, meaningful human review, three-year record keeping and developer documentation obligations.
Applies from 1 Jan 2027Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Colorado Senate Bill 24-205: Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence (Colorado AI Act)
The Colorado AI Act requires developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. High-risk systems are those that make, or are a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions about education, employment, financial or lending services, essential government services, healthcare, housing, insurance or legal services. Deployers must run risk-management programmes and impact assessments, notify consumers, and explain adverse decisions; developers must document systems and disclose known risks.
Adopted 17 May 2024Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
A broad online-safety act that covers frontier developers, AI companions, AI in employment and synthetic content. Its frontier provisions bar retaliation against whistleblowers and require large frontier developers to set up an anonymous internal reporting process and report to their boards quarterly; no duty to publish a safety framework or transparency report was found.
In force 1 Oct 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Decisión Administrativa 899/2024 – Mesa Interministerial sobre Inteligencia Artificial (Administrative Decision 899/2024 – Interministerial Board on Artificial Intelligence)
This administrative decision restructures the Interministerial Board on AI originally created in 2023, placing it under the presidency of the Secretariat of Innovation, Science and Technology and expanding its membership to ministries including Defence, Economy, Foreign Affairs, Health, Security, Human Capital, Justice and State Deregulation. The board is tasked with coordinating the government's approach to AI adoption across economic and social sectors and with developing national strategies. Argentina has not yet adopted a standalone national AI strategy or a binding AI law.
Adopted 24 Sep 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Decreto Supremo N° 115-2025-PCM – Reglamento de la Ley N° 31814 (Supreme Decree No. 115-2025-PCM – Regulation of Law No. 31814)
This regulation, published on 9 September 2025, develops Law 31814 with six titles and 36 articles. It introduces a risk classification distinguishing prohibited uses, high-risk systems and acceptable-risk systems, sets transparency, data protection and governance obligations for public and private actors, and provides for sandboxes, capacity-building and reporting channels. Compliance is phased in over one to four years depending on the sector and type of organisation.
Adopted 9 Sep 2025Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Anything a government or standards body has actually issued: acts, regulations, executive orders, rules, national strategies, frameworks, guidance, codes of practice, voluntary standards and open consultations. Each record states which of those it is, whether it binds anyone, and links the official source it was read from.
Are these records legally verified?
A record is marked verified only after a named reviewer has opened its official source and confirmed each field. Anything that has not been through that carries "pending review" on the record itself, and the data-health document reports the current totals. Nothing here is legal advice.
How current is the information?
Every record carries the date its source document was published and the date it was last checked. A record not re-checked within the freshness window set by the verification policy is flagged as stale rather than quietly presented as current.
Can I reuse this data?
Yes. The records are published under CC BY 4.0 with attribution, and are available as CSV, newline-delimited JSON and a read-only REST API that needs no key. Cite the record URL, the date accessed and the official source alongside it.
