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.
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.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Feb 2025
Legal requirementGovernance and accountability·South Korea
An AI business operator without an address or place of business in Korea, whose user numbers or revenue meet the thresholds set by Presidential Decree, must designate in writing a domestic representative with an address in Korea. The representative handles the operator's duties under the Act, including submitting the Article 32 safety results, supporting high-impact AI confirmation and cooperating with fact-finding investigations, and the operator is treated as responsible for the representative's acts.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirementPrivacy and personal-data protection·Singapore
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 (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
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
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
A deployer of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system must inform the natural persons exposed to it that the system is operating and must process their personal data in line with the GDPR, the Law Enforcement Directive and the EU institutions data protection regulation. Systems permitted by law to detect, prevent or investigate criminal offences are excepted, subject to safeguards. Use in workplaces and schools is separately banned by Article 5 except for medical or safety reasons.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 2 Aug 2026
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
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
A person who provides health-care services or treatment and uses an AI system in relation to those services must disclose that use to the patient, or to the patient's personal representative or guardian, no later than the date the service or treatment is first provided, with an exception for emergencies where the disclosure is made as soon as reasonably possible. The disclosure must be clear, conspicuous and in plain language.
Verified (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Applies from 1 Jan 2026
Legal requirementTransparency and disclosure·Singapore
Organisations should inform individuals that AI systems use their personal data, the purposes, the relevant features and how they influence decisions, proportionate to the impact on the individual.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Using a risk-impact matrix (probability and severity of harm), organisations choose human-in-the-loop, human-over-the-loop or human-out-of-the-loop designs and document the rationale.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Test AI models and systems before deployment and monitor them in operation; enable meaningful human control and intervention; and inform end users about AI-enabled decisions, interactions with AI and AI-generated content.
Source-linked (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
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.
