Artificial Intelligence Policy Tracker

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.

Results

32 of 117 obligations match · page 2 of 2 · Download these as CSV

Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure Texas (United States)

Government agencies must disclose to consumers that they are interacting with an AI system

Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA) · Business and Commerce Code Section 551.051

A governmental agency that makes an AI system available to interact with consumers must disclose to each consumer, before or at the time of the interaction, that they are interacting with an AI system. The disclosure is owed even where the AI nature of the interaction would be obvious, must be clear and conspicuous, written in plain language and may not use a dark pattern; a hyperlink to the disclosure is acceptable for online services.

Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Applies from 1 Jan 2026
Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure South Korea

Operators of high-impact AI must be able to explain outputs and the main criteria behind them

AI Basic Act · Article 34(1)

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 requirement Transparency and disclosure United States

Publish an annual AI use-case inventory

OMB M-25-21 · Section 3

Agencies must inventory their AI use cases annually and publish the inventory, identifying high-impact uses, with limited exclusions.

Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Voluntary guidance Governance and accountability Nepal

Government bodies to promote ethical, responsible and inclusive AI (policy commitment)

Nepal National AI Policy · Policy objectives and strategies (to be confirmed against the official text)

The policy commits the government to ethical, transparent and inclusive AI, data governance and institutional oversight. The specific strategies and any obligations on private actors must be confirmed from the official document; this record intentionally does not state details that could not be verified.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Voluntary guidance Governance and accountability United Arab Emirates

Government commitment to AI ethics, governance and regulation (strategy objective)

UAE AI Strategy 2031 · Strategy objectives on governance and ethics (reviewer to cite the section)

The strategy commits the government to ensure effective governance and regulation of AI and to promote ethical AI, which led to the AI Ethics Principles and Guidelines and the 2024 UAE AI Charter.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Voluntary guidance Impact assessment South Korea

Operators of high-impact AI should assess its impact on fundamental rights before use

AI Basic Act · Article 35

An AI business operator that provides high-impact AI, or a product or service using it, is to make efforts to assess in advance the impact the AI may have on people's fundamental rights. The provision is drafted as an endeavour duty rather than a hard requirement, but public bodies procuring high-impact AI are directed to give preference to products that have undergone such an assessment, and the ministry may set assessment methods.

Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Applies from 22 Jan 2026

Frequently asked questions

What is an obligation on this site?

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.