Compare AI regulation across jurisdictions
Pick two to four jurisdictions. Every cell is derived from published, source-backed records so you can see where binding rules exist, where guidance applies and where nothing is recorded yet.
Change jurisdictions (2 selected)
Australia vs Queensland
| Category | Australia
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
| Queensland (Australia)
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
|
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory status |
No binding cross-sector AI law; mandatory guardrails were consulted on in 2024 but the December 2025 National AI Plan signalled an existing-law approach. Voluntary AI Safety Standard available. Government agencies follow a binding whole-of-government AI policy. A reviewer must confirm the current status of the mandatory-guardrails proposal. |
Pending review: recorded from search extracts of the official sources listed on each instrument, which a reviewer has not yet opened. |
| Binding AI legislation |
No AI-specific binding legislation recorded. See status and guidance. |
|
| High-risk AI rules |
No high-risk tiering recorded. |
No high-risk tiering recorded. |
| Generative and general-purpose AI rules |
0 binding, 1 voluntary |
No generative-AI-specific obligations recorded. |
| Transparency obligations |
No transparency obligations recorded. |
No transparency obligations recorded. |
| Impact assessment |
No impact-assessment obligations recorded. |
No impact-assessment obligations recorded. |
| Data governance and personal data |
No data-governance obligations recorded. |
No data-governance obligations recorded. |
| Human oversight |
0 binding, 1 voluntary |
No human-oversight obligations recorded. |
| Public-sector requirements |
No public-sector-specific requirements recorded. |
No public-sector-specific requirements recorded. |
| Key effective dates |
No dated milestones recorded. |
|
| Official sources |
Cells are generated from published records; a category showing "not recorded" means no source-backed entry exists yet, not that the jurisdiction has no rules. Scroll horizontally on small screens.
Country pairs
Side-by-side table, obligation overlap by category, and what is left for one side if you already comply with the other. Computed from the records.
- European Union vs Japan
- European Union vs South Korea
- Brazil vs European Union
- Canada vs European Union
- Canada vs United Kingdom
- Australia vs United Kingdom
- Canada vs United States
- United Kingdom vs United States
- Japan vs South Korea
- Malaysia vs Singapore
- Indonesia vs Malaysia
- Thailand vs Vietnam
- Brazil vs Mexico
- Brazil vs Peru
- Saudi Arabia vs United Arab Emirates
- Egypt vs Saudi Arabia
- Kenya vs Nigeria
- Ghana vs Nigeria
- India vs Pakistan
- Nepal vs Sri Lanka
- Australia vs New Zealand
- China vs Japan
- China vs European Union
- China vs United States
Curated comparisons
- EU vs India AI regulation: side-by-side comparison
The European Union has a binding, risk-based AI law with phased deadlines; India relies on data-protection and IT law plus non-binding governance guidelines. For a company serving both markets, the EU AI Act usually sets the design bar while India's DPDP Act sets the data bar.
- EU vs UK AI regulation: side-by-side comparison
The EU legislated; the UK delegated to existing regulators under five principles. UK GDPR and the Equality Act do much of the binding work in the UK, while the EU AI Act adds system-level duties on top of the GDPR.
- EU vs US AI regulation: federal, state and AI Act compared
The EU has one binding law applied across 27 Member States; the United States has federal policy that binds agencies, a voluntary NIST framework, and a growing set of state statutes. Colorado is included because it is the closest US analogue to the EU's high-risk approach.
- Singapore vs Australia AI governance compared
Both countries lead with voluntary frameworks and existing law. Singapore emphasises testing and assurance tooling; Australia's guardrails were written to become mandatory if the government chose to legislate.
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.
Frequently asked questions
How many jurisdictions can I compare at once?
Between two and four. Beyond four the table stops being readable on a normal screen, which defeats the point of comparing at all.
What does an empty cell mean?
That nothing is recorded for that jurisdiction on that row — not that the jurisdiction has no rule. An empty cell is a gap in this platform, and the coverage and open-gaps pages track those in public.
Where do the comparison rows come from?
Every cell is derived from the same published, source-linked records the rest of the site uses. Nothing in a comparison is written specially for it, so a correction to a record corrects the comparison too.