Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.
Paraná Law No. 22,324 of 2 April 2025: AI guidelines for the state public administration (PDIA/PR)
Lei nº 22.324, de 2 de abril de 2025 (Plano de Diretrizes de Inteligência Artificial na Administração Pública Estadual)
Requires AI used by the state executive to be ethical, transparent, explainable and auditable, with a regulatory sandbox and staff training; it also renamed the innovation department the Secretariat of Innovation and Artificial Intelligence. Decree 9854 of 7 May 2025 regulates the state AI council.
Adopted 2 Apr 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Queensland Government Artificial Intelligence Governance Policy (QGEA)
Queensland departments must carry out a Foundational AI Risk Assessment (FAIRA, or FAIRA Lite for low-risk work, or an agreed equivalent) and set up AI governance with regard to ISO/IEC 38507.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Schleswig-Holstein IT Deployment Act (ITEG): Act on the use of data-driven information technologies in public administration
Gesetz über die Möglichkeit des Einsatzes von datengetriebenen Informationstechnologien bei öffentlich-rechtlicher Verwaltungstätigkeit (IT-Einsatz-Gesetz – ITEG)
Allows public administration to use AI and other data-driven IT as a general rule, with listed exclusions (for example, it may not be used to issue administrative acts involving discretion), and gives people a specific remedy, the "AI complaint" (KI-Rüge).
Adopted 16 Mar 2022Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
South Australian Government Artificial Intelligence Ethics Policy (v1.0)
A mandatory policy requiring SA government agencies to align their AI systems with the Australian Government's AI Ethics Principles; a separate policy on responsible use and disclosure is being developed.
Adopted 10 Oct 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Signed on 22 June 2025 and effective 1 January 2026, TRAIGA bans developing or deploying AI systems intended to manipulate people into self-harm or crime, government social scoring, biometric identification by government from public data without consent, intentional unlawful discrimination against protected classes, and production of child sexual abuse material or unlawful sexual deepfakes. State agencies and health-care providers must disclose AI interactions. It creates a 36-month regulatory sandbox administered by the Department of Information Resources, a Texas Artificial Intelligence Council, and gives the Attorney General exclusive enforcement with civil penalties after a 60-day cure period; disparate impact alone does not prove intent to discriminate.
Applies from 1 Jan 2026Verified (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
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
Färdplan för Sverige – AI-kommissionens slutbetänkande (SOU 2024:94)
The government-appointed AI Commission's final report sets out a roadmap for Sweden with around 75 proposals: a national AI task force and data factory, compute and skills investment, AI in public administration and health care, access to data for research and innovation, and measures to make the most of the EU AI Act. It estimates costs and proposes a funding envelope over several years.
Adopted 26 Nov 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; 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
Strategie Künstliche Intelligenz der Bundesregierung (AI Strategy of the Federal Government, 2018, updated 2020)
The federal AI strategy, adopted in November 2018 and updated in December 2020, sets out how Germany intends to make AI research, transfer and use competitive while anchoring AI in fundamental rights and the common good. The 2020 update raised planned federal funding to around EUR 5 billion to 2025 and added priorities on pandemic response, sustainability, health, mobility and AI in the public sector. It commits to a European approach to AI regulation and to trustworthy-AI standards.
Adopted 15 Nov 2018Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
AI – Here for Good: National Artificial Intelligence Strategy for Ireland (2021, refreshed 2024)
Ireland's national AI strategy, first published in July 2021 and refreshed in November 2024 to reflect the EU AI Act and generative AI, is organised around building public trust, leveraging AI for economic and societal benefit, and enablers such as data, infrastructure, skills and governance. The refresh sets out Ireland's AI Act implementation model, public-sector AI guidelines and an AI advisory council.
Adopted 8 Jul 2021Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Strategie der Bundesregierung für Künstliche Intelligenz – Artificial Intelligence Mission Austria 2030 (AIM AT 2030)
Adopted in August 2021, AIM AT 2030 sets three objectives: broad use of AI oriented to the common good and fundamental rights, Austria as a research and innovation location, and competitiveness of the Austrian technology and business location. It lists fields of action including trustworthy AI, public administration, skills, data and infrastructure, with an implementation and monitoring structure.
Adopted 25 Aug 2021Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Launched in July 2020, the charter commits signatory government agencies to transparency (plain-English explanations of how algorithms are used), partnership with Māori (Te Tiriti), people-focused use, data fit for purpose, privacy, ethics and human rights safeguards, human oversight and channels for challenge, applied through a risk matrix for high-impact algorithms. Around 30 agencies have signed; a 2021 review recommended stronger implementation.
Adopted 28 Jul 2020Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Finland's Age of Artificial Intelligence: Turning Finland into a leading country in the application of AI (objective and recommendations for measures)
The 2017 report of the steering group appointed by the Minister of Economic Affairs proposed eight key actions to make Finland a leader in applying AI: enhancing business competitiveness, using data in all sectors, faster adoption, top-level expertise and talent, bold decisions and investments, the best public services, new cooperation models and a human-centred approach. It launched the national AI programme continued in the 2019 final report and the AI 4.0 programme.
Adopted 23 Oct 2017Verified (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.
