AI compliance obligations

Practical requirements extracted from policy instruments, with the source article, the actors they bind, evidence examples and original framework mappings. Legal requirements are marked; everything else is voluntary guidance.

38 results · page 1 of 2

Legal requirement ai literacy European Union

Ensure AI literacy of staff operating AI systems

EU AI Act · Article 4

Providers and deployers must take measures to ensure, to their best extent, a sufficient level of AI literacy among their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, taking into account technical knowledge, experience, training, the context of use and the persons affected.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Feb 2025
Legal requirement conformity assessment European Union

Complete conformity assessment, CE marking and EU database registration

EU AI Act · Articles 43, 47, 48 and 49; Annex VIII

Before placing a high-risk system on the market, providers must complete the applicable conformity assessment (internal control or notified-body assessment depending on the system), draw up an EU declaration of conformity, affix the CE marking, and register the system in the EU database. Deployers that are public authorities must also register their use of Annex III systems.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirement governance accountability European Union

Use high-risk AI as instructed, monitor it and inform affected people

EU AI Act · Article 26

Deployers of high-risk AI must take technical and organisational measures to use systems according to the instructions, assign human oversight, ensure input data is relevant where they control it, monitor operation, inform the provider and authorities of risks or serious incidents, keep logs, inform workers' representatives before deploying at the workplace, inform affected natural persons where decisions are made about them, and cooperate with authorities.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirement human oversight United Kingdom

Apply safeguards to solely automated decisions with significant effects

ICO AI guidance · UK GDPR Article 22 as amended by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025

Individuals have rights in relation to solely automated decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects, including being told about the decision, obtaining human intervention, and contesting it. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 amended these rules; the reviewer must confirm the current wording.

Source-linked
Legal requirement human oversight European Union

Enable and assign effective human oversight

EU AI Act · Article 14; Article 26(2) for deployers

High-risk systems must be designed with human-machine interface tools so natural persons can effectively oversee them, understand capacities and limitations, avoid automation bias, interpret output, decide not to use the system, and intervene or stop it. Deployers must assign oversight to people with the necessary competence, training and authority. For certain remote biometric identification systems, action requires verification by at least two competent persons.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirement impact assessment European Union

Carry out a fundamental rights impact assessment before deployment

EU AI Act · Article 27

Before deploying most Annex III high-risk systems, deployers that are bodies governed by public law or private entities providing public services, and deployers using systems for creditworthiness assessment or life and health insurance pricing, must assess the impact on fundamental rights: the processes, period and frequency of use, categories of affected persons, specific risks of harm, human-oversight measures and mitigation, and notify the market-surveillance authority of the results.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirement impact assessment Colorado (United States)

Deployers must complete impact assessments for high-risk AI

Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1703(3)

Deployers must complete an impact assessment before deployment, annually, and within 90 days of any intentional and substantial modification, covering purpose, risks of algorithmic discrimination and mitigation, data categories, performance metrics, transparency measures and post-deployment monitoring, and retain assessments for at least three years.

Source-linked Applies from 30 Jun 2026
Legal requirement incident handling India

Implement reasonable security safeguards and notify breaches

India DPDP Act · Section 8(5) and 8(6); DPDP Rules on breach intimation

Data Fiduciaries must protect personal data with reasonable security safeguards and, on a personal data breach, inform the Data Protection Board and each affected individual in the form and manner prescribed by the Rules.

Source-linked
Legal requirement incident handling European Union

Report serious incidents to market surveillance authorities

EU AI Act · Article 73

Providers of high-risk AI systems must report serious incidents to the market-surveillance authority of the Member State where the incident occurred, immediately after establishing a causal link (or reasonable likelihood) and no later than 15 days after becoming aware, with shorter limits for the most serious cases such as widespread infringements or death. Deployers must inform the provider and authorities when they identify a serious incident.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirement privacy data protection Nepal

Collect and use personal information only with consent and for the stated purpose

Nepal Privacy Act 2075 · Chapter on collection and protection of personal information (reviewer to cite sections)

Personal information may be collected only by authorised persons for a lawful purpose with the individual's consent, and must not be used or disclosed for other purposes without consent, subject to statutory exceptions. AI systems trained on or processing personal data of people in Nepal must respect these limits.

Source-linked
Legal requirement privacy data protection Singapore

Identify consent or an applicable PDPA exception before using personal data in AI

PDPC AI advisory guidelines · Advisory guidelines, sections on consent, business improvement and research exceptions

Personal data used to train or operate AI systems requires consent unless an exception applies, such as the business improvement exception for improving products and services or the research exception for developing models, each subject to conditions.

Source-linked
Legal requirement prohibited practice European Union

Do not deploy or provide AI for prohibited practices

EU AI Act · Article 5

Article 5 bans placing on the market, putting into service or using AI for listed practices, including subliminal or manipulative techniques that cause significant harm, exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring by public or private actors leading to detrimental treatment, untargeted scraping of facial images to build recognition databases, emotion recognition in workplaces and education institutions except for medical or safety reasons, biometric categorisation to infer protected characteristics, and real-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement outside narrow exceptions.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Feb 2025
Legal requirement record keeping European Union

Design high-risk systems to log events automatically

EU AI Act · Article 12; Article 26(6) for deployers

High-risk AI systems must technically allow automatic recording of events (logs) over their lifetime to support traceability, post-market monitoring and operational monitoring. Deployers must keep the logs generated by the system, to the extent under their control, for a period appropriate to the intended purpose and at least six months unless other law provides otherwise.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirement risk management Colorado (United States)

Deployers must implement a risk management policy and programme

Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1703(2)

Deployers of high-risk AI must implement a risk-management policy and programme governing deployment, specifying principles, processes and personnel used to identify, document and mitigate known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination, and reasonable in light of recognised frameworks such as the NIST AI RMF or ISO/IEC 42001.

Source-linked Applies from 30 Jun 2026
Legal requirement transparency European Union

Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content

EU AI Act · Article 50

Providers must ensure AI systems intended to interact with people inform them they are dealing with AI unless obvious; providers of systems generating synthetic audio, image, video or text must mark output in a machine-readable, detectable format; deployers of emotion-recognition or biometric-categorisation systems must inform exposed persons; deployers must disclose deepfakes and AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest, subject to exceptions.

Source-linked Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirement transparency Colorado (United States)

Notify consumers and explain adverse consequential decisions

Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1703(4)

Before a high-risk system makes a consequential decision, deployers must notify the consumer that AI is used, describe its purpose and nature, and provide contact and opt-out information where applicable. After an adverse decision they must state the principal reasons, the data used and its sources, and offer an opportunity to correct data and to appeal for human review where feasible.

Source-linked Applies from 30 Jun 2026
Search