Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.
Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Durchführung der KI-Verordnung (KI-Marktüberwachungs- und Innovationsförderungsgesetz, KI-MIG)
The draft implementation act designates the Bundesnetzagentur as the central market-surveillance authority and single point of contact under the EU AI Act, keeps sector regulators (financial supervision, data protection for law-enforcement uses) competent in their fields, sets the national penalty framework within the Regulation's ranges and creates a national AI regulatory sandbox and an AI service desk for companies.
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
人工智慧基本法 (Artificial Intelligence Basic Act) – draft approved by the Executive Yuan, July 2024
A framework act setting seven principles for AI development and use, requiring the government to promote AI research, talent and infrastructure, to establish a risk-classification framework and safety standards, to protect personal data, labour and consumers, to provide for liability, disclosure of AI-generated content and non-discrimination, and to designate competent authorities by sector, with the NSTC coordinating.
Adopted 15 Jul 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Calabria Regional Law No. 4 of 2 February 2026 on the use of artificial intelligence systems in the region
Legge regionale 2 febbraio 2026, n. 4, "Disposizioni concernenti l'impiego di sistemi di intelligenza artificiale in ambito regionale"
Governs the use of AI in the regional administration, with human review, data protection and transparency; sets up a health-AI pilot programme, a voluntary regional register of AI developers and a regional AI Office.
Adopted 2 Feb 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California AI Transparency Act (SB 942, as amended by AB 853)
Covered providers of generative AI systems must offer a free AI-detection tool and embed disclosures and provenance data in AI-generated content. AB 853 (Chapter 674, Statutes of 2025) moved the operative date to 2 August 2026 and added duties for large online platforms and generative-AI hosting platforms.
Applies from 2 Aug 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 813: Independent verification organizations for AI (Chapter 179, Statutes of 2026)
The Government Operations Agency must, by 1 January 2028, set up a process to designate and oversee independent verification organisations that assess AI models and applications. The law does not require any developer to use one.
Adopted 9 Sep 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 1119: Companion chatbots: children's safety (Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026)
Operators must carry out a documented, child-focused risk assessment before releasing a new or substantially modified companion chatbot, from 1 July 2027, and commission child-safety audits by 1 January 2029 or before first public release if later. The Attorney General must set up a public incident-reporting mechanism by 1 January 2028.
Applies from 1 Jul 2027Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 243: Companion chatbots (Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025)
Operators of companion chatbots must disclose that the chatbot is AI and maintain a protocol for responding to suicidal ideation and self-harm that refers users to crisis services. Users known to be minors get break reminders and protection from sexual content. Annual reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention begin 1 July 2027, and a person injured by a violation can bring a civil action.
Adopted 13 Oct 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California SB 53: Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act
SB 53 requires "large frontier developers" (developers of the most compute-intensive models above statutory thresholds) to publish a frontier AI framework describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, publish transparency reports when deploying new frontier models, report critical safety incidents to the California Office of Emergency Services, and protect employees who report safety concerns. It also directs creation of a public computing cluster ("CalCompute").
Applies from 1 Jan 2026Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
California AB 2013: Generative artificial intelligence: training data transparency (Chapter 817, Statutes of 2024)
Developers of generative AI systems made available to Californians must post documentation of the data used to train them on their websites, including summaries of the datasets, whether they include copyrighted material, whether they were purchased or licensed, and whether they include personal information.
Applies from 1 Jan 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Colorado Senate Bill 26-189: Automated Decision-Making Technology (replacement of the Colorado AI Act)
SB 26-189 replaces the Colorado AI Act's regulation of "high-risk" AI systems with duties that attach when automated decision-making technology materially influences a consequential decision about a Colorado consumer in areas such as employment, lending, housing, education, healthcare, insurance and government services. It drops the earlier duty of reasonable care, the mandatory risk-management programme, impact assessments and Attorney General notification, and substitutes advance notice to the consumer, disclosure after an adverse outcome, meaningful human review, three-year record keeping and developer documentation obligations.
Applies from 1 Jan 2027Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Colorado Senate Bill 24-205: Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence (Colorado AI Act)
The Colorado AI Act requires developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. High-risk systems are those that make, or are a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions about education, employment, financial or lending services, essential government services, healthcare, housing, insurance or legal services. Deployers must run risk-management programmes and impact assessments, notify consumers, and explain adverse decisions; developers must document systems and disclose known risks.
Adopted 17 May 2024Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
A broad online-safety act that covers frontier developers, AI companions, AI in employment and synthetic content. Its frontier provisions bar retaliation against whistleblowers and require large frontier developers to set up an anonymous internal reporting process and report to their boards quarterly; no duty to publish a safety framework or transparency report was found.
In force 1 Oct 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
DIFC Data Protection Regulations, Regulation 10: personal data processed through autonomous and semi-autonomous systems
Sets rules for personal data processed through autonomous and semi-autonomous systems in the Dubai International Financial Centre: notice and transparency when such a system is used, the deployer as controller and the operator as processor, limits on purposes, a future certification scheme, and an Autonomous Systems Officer for high-risk processing.
Adopted 1 Sep 2023Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The draft act implements the EU AI Act in Poland: it creates the Commission for the Development and Safety of Artificial Intelligence as the market-surveillance authority and single point of contact, sets procedures for complaints and inspections, provides for a regulatory sandbox and defines the national penalty regime.
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Yapay Zekâ Kanunu Teklifi (Artificial Intelligence Law proposal submitted to the Grand National Assembly, June 2024)
A short framework bill proposing principles for AI (safety, transparency, fairness, accountability, privacy), a risk-based approach with registration of high-risk systems, operator obligations and penalties, and supervision by designated authorities, broadly modelled on the EU AI Act.
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Anteproyecto de Ley para el buen uso y la gobernanza de la inteligencia artificial
The draft implements the EU AI Act in Spain: it allocates supervision among AESIA, the data-protection authority, the electoral board, the financial and audiovisual regulators, sets the national penalty scale (up to EUR 35 million or 7% of turnover for prohibited practices), treats failure to label AI-generated content as a serious infringement and provides for the national sandbox to continue.
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Proyecto de Ley Orgánica de Regulación y Promoción de la Inteligencia Artificial
The draft organic law proposes principles for AI (human-centric, transparency, non-discrimination, safety), a risk-based classification with prohibited and high-risk uses, obligations for developers and deployers, a national AI authority and sanctions, drawing on the EU AI Act and UNESCO recommendation.
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence
Executive Order 14179, signed 23 January 2025, sets US federal policy to sustain and enhance American AI dominance, directs the development of an AI Action Plan within 180 days, and orders agencies to review and revise or rescind actions taken under the revoked Executive Order 14110 that are inconsistent with the new policy. It also called for revision of the OMB memoranda governing federal agency use and procurement of AI, which OMB replaced in April 2025 with M-25-21 and M-25-22.
In force 23 Jan 2025Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The EU AI Act is a binding regulation that sets rules for developing, placing on the market and using AI systems in the European Union. It bans a small set of practices considered unacceptable, imposes detailed requirements on "high-risk" AI systems used in areas such as employment, education, credit, essential services, law enforcement and safety-critical products, requires transparency for chatbots and synthetic content, and creates separate duties for providers of general-purpose AI models. Obligations apply in phases between 2025 and 2028.
Applies from 2 Aug 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Federal Law No. 123-FZ of 24 April 2020 on an experiment to establish special regulation to create the conditions for the development and implementation of AI technologies in Moscow
Establishes a five-year experimental legal regime in Moscow (from 1 July 2020) allowing participants to develop and deploy AI technologies under special rules, including processing of anonymised personal data for AI purposes, coordinated by the Moscow government with a register of participants. It was accompanied by amendments to the personal-data law.
In force 1 Jul 2020Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Anything a government or standards body has actually issued: acts, regulations, executive orders, rules, national strategies, frameworks, guidance, codes of practice, voluntary standards and open consultations. Each record states which of those it is, whether it binds anyone, and links the official source it was read from.
Are these records legally verified?
A record is marked verified only after a named reviewer has opened its official source and confirmed each field. Anything that has not been through that carries "pending review" on the record itself, and the data-health document reports the current totals. Nothing here is legal advice.
How current is the information?
Every record carries the date its source document was published and the date it was last checked. A record not re-checked within the freshness window set by the verification policy is flagged as stale rather than quietly presented as current.
Can I reuse this data?
Yes. The records are published under CC BY 4.0 with attribution, and are available as CSV, newline-delimited JSON and a read-only REST API that needs no key. Cite the record URL, the date accessed and the official source alongside it.
