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
Buenos Aires Province Decree 742/2026: Provincial framework for the development, use and governance of artificial intelligence
Decreto 742/2026, Marco Provincial para el Desarrollo, Uso y Gobernanza de la Inteligencia Artificial
Sets the framework for AI in the provincial public sector, including risk and impact assessment and human oversight of decisions affecting rights. The Undersecretariat of Digital Government enforces it; it creates a provincial AI register and invites municipalities to adhere.
Adopted 6 Jul 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 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
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
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
Goiás Complementary Law No. 205 of 19 May 2025: State Policy for the Promotion of Innovation in Artificial Intelligence
Lei Complementar nº 205, de 19 de maio de 2025 (Política Estadual de Fomento à Inovação em Inteligência Artificial)
Promotes AI innovation, prefers open-source and open models in public AI projects, and gives people rights over automated decisions, including information, contestation and human review on appeal. It creates an AI ethics and innovation advisory body, a permanent state AI sandbox and an annual AI prize.
Adopted 19 May 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Illinois Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act (HB 1806, Public Act 104-0054)
No one may provide therapy or psychotherapy in Illinois, including through AI, unless it is delivered by a licensed professional. AI may be used only for administrative and supplementary support, with notice to and consent from the client. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation enforces it.
In force 1 Aug 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Illinois Public Act 103-0804 (HB 3773): Artificial intelligence in employment decisions – amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act
Signed 9 August 2024 and effective 1 January 2026, the Act makes it a civil-rights violation for an employer to use artificial intelligence in recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge or other terms of employment in a way that subjects employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes, or to use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes. Employers must notify employees when AI is used for such decisions; the Department of Human Rights is to adopt rules on notice.
Applies from 1 Jan 2026Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Kentucky SB 4 (2025): An Act relating to protection of information (Acts Chapter 66)
The Commonwealth Office of Technology must create an AI Governance Committee, write AI policy and technology standards, and keep a registry of generative and high-risk AI used by state agencies. Agencies must disclose when AI is used in decisions about people or businesses and report every year. The act also creates a cause of action over synthetic media in election campaigns.
In force 24 Mar 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Artificial Intelligence" (signed November 2025)
The law defines AI systems and their classification by level of autonomy and risk, sets principles (legality, fairness, transparency, safety, human control), assigns duties to owners and operators of AI systems including risk management, labelling of AI-generated content and protection of personal data, prohibits certain manipulative and social-scoring uses, provides for a national AI platform and state support measures, and allocates state regulation to the authorised body.
Adopted 17 Nov 2025Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
The Department of Information Technology sets AI policies for state government; state units must inventory their AI systems and carry out impact assessments, and public higher-education institutions must adopt AI policies.
Adopted 9 May 2024Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Montana Right to Compute Act (SB 212, 69th Legislature, 2025)
Recognises a right to own and use computational resources and limits government restrictions on them; critical infrastructure facilities controlled by an AI system must have a risk management policy.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
A risk-triage self-assessment across the AI lifecycle that replaced the NSW AI Assurance Framework. High- or critical-risk systems go to the AI Review Committee; using the assessment platform is mandatory for agencies under Circular DCS-2026-02.
Applies from 30 Sep 2026Pending review (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.
