Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.
Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security (ELVIS) Act of 2024 (Tennessee Public Chapter 588)
Signed 21 March 2024 and effective 1 July 2024, the ELVIS Act updates Tennessee's Personal Rights Protection Act to add voice to the protected attributes of name, photograph and likeness, prohibits publishing or making available an individual's voice or likeness without authorisation, and creates liability for distributing or making available an algorithm, software or tool whose primary purpose is producing an individual's voice or likeness without authorisation. It provides civil actions for individuals and licensees and criminal penalties.
In force 1 Jul 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Tokyo Metropolitan Government AI Introduction and Utilization Guideline
東京都 AI導入・活用ガイドライン
Practical rules for Tokyo Metropolitan Government divisions adopting AI, including generative AI: a basic policy, six AI-specific cautions and a process from planning through procurement to retirement, with points graded as required or recommended. A staff handbook on generative AI was issued the same day.
Adopted 30 Mar 2026Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Tuscany regional law on the responsible and conscious use of artificial intelligence (approved 21 July 2026)
According to the regional government's news agency, the law creates a Tuscan charter of digital rights, a regional AI observatory supported by IRPET, and measures to protect minors.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (UAE PDPL)
The UAE Personal Data Protection Law is the federal data-protection law applying outside the DIFC and ADGM free zones. It sets principles for lawful processing, consent and its exceptions, data-subject rights (including the right to object to automated decision-making without human intervention), controller and processor duties, security and breach notification to the UAE Data Office, cross-border transfer rules, and data protection impact assessments for high-risk processing including new technologies.
In force 2 Jan 2022Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Administrative Guideline for the safe and responsible use of Generative AI in the Victorian Public Sector (No. 2024/07)
Sets minimum requirements for generative AI in the Victorian public sector: agency-approved tools are preferred, AI should not be used to make decisions or assessments, privacy, FOI and human-rights obligations still apply, and staff must be trained. Relying on unverified AI output could breach the codes of conduct.
Adopted 27 Nov 2024Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
WA Government Artificial Intelligence Policy and Assurance Framework
Each WA public sector entity nominates an AI Accountable Officer and self-assesses its AI and automated decision-making systems; higher-risk, Digital Capability Fund-funded or large projects go to the WA AI Advisory Board, whose advice is non-binding, and use cases are recorded in a government AI register.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
A AED 13 billion strategy to make Abu Dhabi a fully AI-native government by 2027, with targets including more than 200 AI solutions, full migration to a sovereign cloud and Chief Digital and AI Officers in every entity.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
ACT Government Artificial Intelligence Policy (Version 1.0) and AI Assurance Framework
Aligns ACT government use of AI with Australia's AI Ethics Principles and the national assurance framework; in-scope initiatives are reviewed by an ACT AI Advisory Group, and standard AI features of commercial products are exempt.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
AI Cymru: Shaping a Smarter, Fairer, More Prosperous Wales (AI plan for Wales)
A plan built on four pillars (economic growth, educating Wales, equitable delivery, excellence and trust) with a Welsh Government Office for AI and a Strategic AI Advisory Group. It proposes no legislation.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The Voluntary AI Safety Standard gives Australian organisations ten guardrails for developing and deploying AI safely and responsibly: accountability and governance, risk management, data governance and protection, testing and monitoring, human control and intervention, user transparency, contestability, supply-chain transparency, record keeping, and stakeholder engagement. The guardrails were designed to align with the mandatory guardrails proposed for high-risk settings so that early adopters would be prepared if those became law.
Adopted 5 Sep 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Beijing: Several Measures for Promoting the Innovation and Development of General Artificial Intelligence
北京市促进通用人工智能创新发展的若干措施
Twenty-one measures on compute, data, models, application scenarios and an "inclusive and prudent" approach to regulation and ethics for general-purpose AI in Beijing.
Adopted 23 May 2023Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Catalonia AI Strategy 2030 (Estratègia Catalunya IA 2030)
Estratègia Catalunya IA 2030
A five-year strategy with up to €1 billion and 90 actions across eight areas: infrastructure, talent, research, business adoption, the public sector, ethics, digital society and international projection. It replaces the Catalonia.AI strategy of February 2020.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The Flemish government's AI programme, funding research, business adoption through VLAIO, and awareness, training and ethics. The first plan (2019) had about €32 million a year; a second cycle for 2024-2028 was approved in 2024.
Adopted 22 Mar 2019Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Hong Kong Ethical Artificial Intelligence Framework (Digital Policy Office)
Guiding principles, leading practices and an AI assessment for government AI projects, with a three-line governance model in which the IT board or chief information officer reviews high-risk AI. It was updated for generative AI.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The ICO's guidance explains how UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 apply when organisations develop or use AI that processes personal data. It covers accountability and governance, lawfulness and fairness, transparency, data minimisation, security, individual rights, and automated decision-making. The guidance is not itself law, but it reflects how the regulator interprets binding obligations and is the reference point in ICO enforcement.
Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The India AI Governance Guidelines set out a principle-based, pro-innovation approach to governing AI in India. They articulate guiding principles (such as trust, people-first design, fairness, accountability, safety and transparency), propose an institutional framework including an AI governance group and an AI Safety Institute role, favour applying existing laws over a new AI statute, and recommend voluntary commitments, techno-legal measures, risk-based oversight and incident reporting for AI systems.
Adopted 5 Nov 2025Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
An investment and adoption policy that targets about ₹10,000 crore of investment and 1.5 lakh jobs by 2031, with a Maharashtra AI Mission, an AI-adoption subsidy for MSMEs, an AI start-up venture fund, incubators, centres of excellence and AI innovation cities.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
National Artificial Intelligence Policy, 2082 (2025) — Nepal
Nepal's National AI Policy sets the government's direction for developing and using artificial intelligence. Based on the published summaries, it aims to build AI infrastructure and skills, promote ethical and responsible AI, strengthen data governance, establish institutional arrangements for AI oversight, and prepare legal and regulatory measures. It is a policy framework, not a law, and does not itself create enforceable obligations on private organisations.
Adopted 1 Aug 2025Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) and Generative AI Profile
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework is a voluntary framework for managing risks to individuals, organisations and society from AI. It organises practices into four functions: Govern, Map, Measure and Manage, and describes characteristics of trustworthy AI such as validity, safety, security, accountability, explainability, privacy and fairness. The July 2024 Generative AI Profile (NIST AI 600-1) adds risks and suggested actions specific to generative AI. Many US procurement requirements and state laws reference the framework as a recognised approach.
Adopted 26 Jan 2023Verified (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.
