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.
A person may not develop or deploy an AI system in a manner that intentionally aims to incite or encourage a person to commit physical self-harm, including suicide, to harm another person, or to engage in criminal activity. The prohibition turns on the developer's or deployer's intent rather than on the system's effects, which is the pattern followed throughout the Act's prohibited-use provisions.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
A person may not develop or deploy an AI system with the intent to unlawfully discriminate against a protected class in violation of state or federal law. A disparate impact on a protected class is not, by itself, sufficient to show an intent to discriminate, and insurers and financial institutions acting under their own regulatory regimes are treated separately.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
A person may not develop or distribute an AI system with the sole intent of producing, assisting or aiding in producing, or distributing child pornography or unlawful deep-fake videos or images, including sexually explicit deepfakes of a person without consent, or of engaging in sexually explicit text-based conversations while impersonating or imitating a child, in violation of the Texas Penal Code.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
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.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Feb 2025
Legal requirementQuality management system·European Union
Providers of high-risk AI systems must put in place a documented quality management system covering regulatory-compliance strategy, design and development procedures, testing and validation, technical specifications and standards, data management, the risk-management system, post-market monitoring, incident reporting, communication with authorities, record keeping, resource management and an accountability framework.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementRecord keeping and logging·European Union
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.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementRecord keeping and logging·European Union
For ten years after a high-risk AI system is placed on the market or put into service, the provider must keep at the disposal of national competent authorities the technical documentation, the quality management system documentation, any changes approved by a notified body, the notified body's decisions and other documents, and the EU declaration of conformity. Financial institutions keep these as part of their sector record-keeping.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementRecord keeping and logging·European Union
Providers must keep the event logs that a high-risk AI system generates under Article 12, to the extent those logs are within their control, for a period appropriate to the system's intended purpose and in any case for at least six months, unless Union or national law on personal data sets a different period. Financial institutions keep the logs under their sector rules.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
A developer of a high-risk AI system must use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risk of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses of the system. A developer that meets the documentation, public-statement and Attorney General disclosure duties in the rest of section 6-1-1702 benefits from a rebuttable presumption that it used reasonable care.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Providers of high-risk AI systems must establish, implement, document and maintain a continuous, iterative risk-management system across the system's lifecycle: identifying known and reasonably foreseeable risks to health, safety and fundamental rights, estimating and evaluating risks including from reasonably foreseeable misuse, evaluating post-market data, and adopting targeted risk-management measures, with testing before placing on the market.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
An AI business operator that provides high-impact AI, or a product or service using it, must establish and operate a plan for managing the risks of that AI. High-impact AI is AI used in areas such as energy, drinking water, health care and medical devices, nuclear safety, biometric analysis for criminal investigation, decisions on recruitment or loans, transport, public services and education, where it may materially affect life, safety or fundamental rights.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirementSafety testing and evaluation·South Korea
An AI business operator whose AI system's cumulative training computation exceeds the threshold set by Presidential Decree must identify, assess and mitigate risks across the system's life cycle, build a risk management system to monitor and respond to safety incidents caused by the AI, and submit the results of these measures to the Minister of Science and ICT. The threshold and reporting form are set in the Decree.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Developers must make available to deployers a general statement of intended uses, documentation of known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination, training-data summaries, limitations, performance evaluation and mitigation measures, and information needed for deployer impact assessments, and must publish a public statement describing their high-risk systems and how they manage discrimination risks.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Developers of automated decision-making technology must provide deployers with the documentation the statute lists, so that deployers can meet their notice, disclosure and review duties.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2027
Technical documentation must be drawn up before a high-risk system is placed on the market or put into service and kept up to date. It must demonstrate compliance with the Section 2 requirements and contain at least the elements in Annex IV, including a general description, development process, monitoring and control, risk-management description, and the applied standards. SMEs may use a simplified form provided by the Commission.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
A provider that considers a system listed in Annex III to be outside the high-risk tier because it meets one of the Article 6(3) conditions, such as performing a narrow procedural task or only preparing a human assessment, must write down that assessment before placing the system on the market or putting it into service, register the system in the EU database under Article 49(2), and hand over the assessment on request from a national competent authority.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·South Korea
An AI business operator that provides generative AI or a product or service using it must indicate that the output was generated by generative AI. Where the operator provides content such as virtual sound, images or video that is hard to distinguish from reality, it must clearly notify users that the content is AI-generated, in a manner that does not impair a work's artistic or creative expression where that applies. Detailed methods are left to Presidential Decree and ministry guidance.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·South Korea
An AI business operator that provides a product or service operated by high-impact AI or by generative AI must notify users in advance that the product or service is based on such AI. The notice is owed before use and is the entry point of the Act's transparency chapter; failure to give it can attract an administrative fine after a corrective order.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Any developer or deployer that makes an AI system available to consumers that is intended to interact with them must disclose to each consumer that they are interacting with an AI system, unless that would be obvious to a reasonable person. This duty is not limited to high-risk systems and covers chatbots and voice agents offered to Colorado consumers.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·European Union
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.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Aug 2026
California SB 53 · Business and Professions Code Section 22757.12 (as added by SB 53)
Before or at the time a frontier developer deploys a new frontier model, or a substantially modified version, it must publish a transparency report on its website describing the model, its intended uses and restrictions, the release date and modalities, and how to contact the developer. A large frontier developer must add a summary of its catastrophic-risk assessment for the model, the results, any third-party evaluators involved and the steps taken under its frontier AI framework, with trade-secret and security redactions explained.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·South Korea
Operators of high-impact AI must put in place measures to explain the AI's final results, the main criteria used to reach them, and an overview of the training data, to the extent that this is technically feasible. The duty targets explainability of the system's decisions to users and affected people rather than full disclosure of the model.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·European Union
High-risk AI systems must be designed so their operation is sufficiently transparent for deployers to interpret output and use it appropriately, and must be accompanied by instructions for use covering the provider's identity, the system's characteristics, capabilities and limitations, performance for the intended purpose and known foreseeable misuse, human-oversight measures, expected lifetime and maintenance.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·European Union
Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, that generate synthetic audio, image, video or text must ensure the output is marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated. The technical solution must be effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as the state of the art allows, taking account of content type and cost. Systems that only perform assistive editing or do not substantially alter the input, and law-authorised criminal-detection uses, are outside the duty.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Aug 2026
Legal requirementVendor and supply-chain governance·European Union
A provider of a high-risk AI system and any third party that supplies AI systems, tools, services, components or processes used in or integrated into it must set out, in a written agreement, the information, capabilities, technical access and other assistance needed for the provider to meet its obligations, based on the generally acknowledged state of the art. Suppliers of free and open-source tools and components other than general-purpose AI models are outside this duty. The AI Office may publish voluntary model terms.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Dec 2027
A single practical requirement pulled out of an instrument and stated on its own: keep a risk management system, log incidents, document training data, provide human oversight, and so on. Each one cites the article or section it comes from so you can check it against the source.
Does a voluntary obligation have legal force?
No, and every obligation is labelled either a legal requirement or voluntary guidance. Voluntary items still matter in practice, because procurement questionnaires and auditors ask about them, but only the binding ones carry legal consequence.
How do I find the obligations that apply to my organisation?
Filter by jurisdiction, category, actor, sector or use case. The applicability check asks a short set of questions and returns the duties that may reach you. It is an educational screen, not a legal determination, and it says so.
Why do some instruments have no obligations listed?
Because nobody has broken them out yet. Most instruments are recorded at summary level first; obligations are added jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The coverage and open-gaps pages publish exactly what is missing rather than hiding it.
