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) 2 selected

Europe (58)

International (1)

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

Oceania (20)

Start again

India vs Odisha

Comparison of India, Odisha (India)
Category	India Verified 26 Sep 2026 (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)	Odisha (India) Pending review 15 Oct 2026 (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Regulatory status	No binding cross-sector AI law. Binding obligations arise from the DPDP Act 2023 (phased commencement under the November 2025 Rules), the IT Act and intermediary rules, and sector regulation. The India AI Governance Guidelines (November 2025) are non-binding. A reviewer must confirm the commencement schedule of the DPDP Rules.	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.	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	3 binding, 1 voluntary Significant Data Fiduciaries must appoint a DPO and run impact assessments and audits Implement reasonable security safeguards and notify breaches Process personal data only with valid consent or a legitimate use, after notice Adopt the guiding principles and risk-based governance (voluntary) (voluntary)	No generative-AI-specific obligations recorded.
Transparency obligations	No transparency obligations recorded.	No transparency obligations recorded.
Impact assessment	1 binding, 0 voluntary Significant Data Fiduciaries must appoint a DPO and run impact assessments and audits	No impact-assessment obligations recorded.
Data governance and personal data	1 binding, 0 voluntary Process personal data only with valid consent or a legitimate use, after notice	No data-governance obligations recorded.
Human oversight	No human-oversight obligations recorded.	No human-oversight obligations recorded.
Public-sector requirements	No public-sector-specific requirements recorded.	No public-sector-specific requirements recorded.
Key effective dates	11 August 2023: Presidential assent (India DPDP Act) 13 November 2025: DPDP Rules 2025 notified (India DPDP Act)	No dated milestones recorded.
Official sources	Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 IndiaAI Mission	Policies and publications

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.