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)

Jurisdictions

Up to four. The number beside a name is how many instruments it has; a dash means nothing AI-specific is recorded yet.

Africa (55)

Americas (54)

Asia (61) 1 selected

Europe (58) 1 selected

International (1)

International organisations (OECD, UNESCO, UN, G7, ISO) 6

Oceania (20)

Start again

EU vs South Korea

Comparison of European Union, South Korea
Category	European Union Verified 26 Sep 2026 (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)	South Korea Verified 26 Sep 2026 (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Regulatory status	Binding regulation in force and partially applicable. Prohibited practices and AI-literacy duties apply since 2 February 2025; general-purpose AI model obligations and the governance and penalties chapters since 2 August 2025; most remaining obligations, including Annex III high-risk requirements, are scheduled from 2 August 2026, with high-risk AI embedded in Annex I regulated products from 2 August 2027. A Commission "Digital Omnibus" proposal published in November 2025 would adjust some high-risk application dates; its adoption status must be checked against the official sources linked below.	Instruments on record: Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust (2025, act, in force). Each is linked to its official source; human verification pending.
Binding AI legislation	EU AI Act (Partially applicable)	AI Basic Act (In force)
High-risk AI rules	44 binding, 0 voluntary Apply data governance and quality criteria to training, validation and testing data Draw up technical documentation before placing a high-risk system on the market Design high-risk systems to log events automatically Operate a quality management system Verify conformity before importing or distributing high-risk AI Do not deploy or provide AI for prohibited practices	No high-risk tiering recorded.
Generative and general-purpose AI rules	12 binding, 0 voluntary Ensure AI literacy of staff operating AI systems Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content Meet general-purpose AI model provider obligations Manage systemic risk for high-impact general-purpose models Providers of high-risk AI must have written agreements with suppliers of components, tools and services Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output as artificially generated in a machine-readable way	4 binding, 0 voluntary Foreign AI business operators above the threshold must designate a domestic representative in Korea AI business operators must label generative AI output and clearly flag realistic synthetic media Operators of AI above the compute threshold must run lifecycle risk management and report safety results AI business operators must notify users in advance that a product or service runs on high-impact or generative AI
Transparency obligations	8 binding, 0 voluntary Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content Employers must inform workers and their representatives before using high-risk AI at work Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output as artificially generated in a machine-readable way Deployers must tell natural persons that a high-risk AI system is used in decisions about them Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation must inform exposed persons Deployers must disclose deepfakes and AI-generated text published on matters of public interest	3 binding, 0 voluntary AI business operators must label generative AI output and clearly flag realistic synthetic media AI business operators must notify users in advance that a product or service runs on high-impact or generative AI Operators of high-impact AI must be able to explain outputs and the main criteria behind them
Impact assessment	1 binding, 0 voluntary Carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment before deployment	0 binding, 1 voluntary Operators of high-impact AI should assess its impact on fundamental rights before use (voluntary)
Data governance and personal data	3 binding, 0 voluntary Apply data governance and quality criteria to training, validation and testing data Deployers must ensure input data they control is relevant and representative Deployers must use the provider's transparency information in their data protection impact assessment	No data-governance obligations recorded.
Human oversight	1 binding, 0 voluntary Enable and assign effective human oversight	1 binding, 0 voluntary Operators of high-impact AI must ensure human management and supervision
Public-sector requirements	Public-authority deployers must register high-risk AI use and assess fundamental-rights impact Public authorities must register their use of high-risk AI and must not use unregistered systems	No public-sector-specific requirements recorded.
Key effective dates	1 August 2024: Entry into force (EU AI Act) 2 February 2025: Prohibited practices and AI literacy apply (Chapters I and II) (EU AI Act) 2 August 2025: General-purpose AI, governance, notified bodies and penalties apply (EU AI Act) 2 August 2026: General application and Article 50 transparency duties (EU AI Act) 2 December 2026: Two further Article 5 prohibitions apply (non-consensual intimate imagery and child sexual abuse material generation) (EU AI Act) 2 August 2027: General-purpose models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 must comply (EU AI Act) 2 December 2027: High-risk obligations apply to stand-alone Annex III systems (Chapter III, Sections 1 to 3) (EU AI Act) 2 August 2028: High-risk obligations apply to AI embedded in Annex I products (EU AI Act) 31 December 2030: Large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X placed on the market before 2 August 2027 (EU AI Act)	No dated milestones recorded.
Official sources	Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act) — Official Journal AI Act — European Commission policy page European AI Office	Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust (AI Basic Act, Act No. 20676)

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.

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.