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
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 Privacy Protection Agency regulations on automated decision-making technology, risk assessments and cybersecurity audits
Regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act on automated decision-making technology (ADMT), risk assessments and cybersecurity audits. Businesses that use ADMT to make significant decisions about consumers must comply from 1 January 2027, with further deadlines phased into 2028.
Applies from 1 Jan 2027Pending 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
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
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
Executive Order 14365: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
Directs the Attorney General to set up an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws, asks the Commerce Department to identify "onerous" state AI laws (with non-deployment broadband (BEAD) funds tied to that list), and asks the FTC for a policy statement on AI outputs. It does not itself pre-empt any state law; that would take legislation or a court ruling.
In force 11 Dec 2025Pending 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
Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (CETS No. 225)
The first international treaty on AI. Parties must adopt or maintain measures so that activities within the lifecycle of AI systems are consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law, covering public authorities and actors on their behalf and, by choice of approach, private actors. It sets principles (human dignity and autonomy, transparency and oversight, accountability, equality and non-discrimination, privacy, reliability, safe innovation), requires remedies, procedural safeguards and risk and impact assessment, allows moratoria or bans for incompatible uses, and creates a Conference of the Parties for follow-up. National-security activities and defence are excluded.
Adopted 17 May 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Illinois's frontier-AI safety and transparency law, built on the model of California SB 53: large frontier developers must publish a frontier AI framework and update it every year, publish a transparency report when they deploy a new or substantially modified frontier model, report critical safety incidents to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security, and protect whistleblowing employees. Unlike the California and New York laws, it also requires annual independent third-party audits, with a published summary.
Adopted 6 Jul 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025
The DPDP Act is India's cross-sector personal-data law. It applies to digital personal data processed in India and to processing outside India connected with offering goods or services to people in India. It requires a lawful basis (consent or specified legitimate uses), notice, purpose limitation, data accuracy, security safeguards, breach notification to the Data Protection Board and affected individuals, and grants rights of access, correction, erasure and grievance redress. Significant Data Fiduciaries face extra duties such as impact assessments and audits. The Act does not mention AI specifically, but it governs the personal data used to train and operate AI systems.
Adopted 11 Aug 2023Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Ley para el Fomento de la Inteligencia Artificial y Tecnologías Emergentes (Decreto Legislativo, febrero de 2025)
Approved by the Legislative Assembly in February 2025, the law promotes AI development and investment, creates the National Agency for Artificial Intelligence (ANIA) as regulator, defines rights and principles (human oversight, transparency, non-discrimination, data protection), sets registration and sandbox mechanisms and limits liability of developers who act in good faith under the law, alongside data-processing rules for AI training.
Adopted 25 Feb 2025Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Legge 23 settembre 2025, n. 132 – Disposizioni e deleghe al Governo in materia di intelligenza artificiale
Italy's framework AI law, published in the Official Gazette on 25 September 2025 and in force from 10 October 2025. It states principles (human-centric, transparent, safe AI; protection of fundamental rights), sets sector rules for healthcare (AI as support, not replacement, for clinical decisions), employment (information to workers, an AI-at-work observatory), intellectual professions (client disclosure), justice (judge decides; AI only for organisational support) and public administration, requires parental consent for children under 14, designates AgID and ACN as national authorities, delegates the government to align national law with the EU AI Act, and creates a criminal offence for unlawful dissemination of AI-generated or manipulated content with aggravating circumstances for other crimes committed with AI.
In force 10 Oct 2025Verified (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.
