Artificial Intelligence Policy Tracker

AI policy explorer

Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and official source.

Results

15 of 244 instruments match

Calabria (Italy) Act / statute Adopted Binding

Calabria AI law (Regional Law 4/2026)

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 2026 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
California (United States) Act / statute Adopted Binding

California companion chatbot law (SB 243)

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 2025 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Colorado (United States) Act / statute Adopted Binding

Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189)

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 2027 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Colorado (United States) Act / statute Repealed Binding

Colorado AI Act

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 2024 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
European Union Regulation Partially applicable Binding

EU AI Act

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act

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 2026 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Illinois (United States) Act / statute In force Binding

Illinois AI therapy law (HB 1806)

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 2025 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Italy Act / statute In force Binding

Law No. 132/2025 on artificial intelligence

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 2025 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
New York (United States) Act / statute In force Binding

New York AI companion safeguards

New York AI companion safeguards (General Business Law Article 47, sections 1700-1701)

Operators of AI companions must have a protocol to detect and respond to suicidal ideation and self-harm, and must tell users they are talking to AI at the start of a session and at least every three hours.

In force 5 Nov 2025 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Ontario (Canada) Act / statute Adopted Binding

Ontario Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024 (Bill 194)

Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024 (Bill 194), Schedule 1: Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, 2024

The Act allows the Ontario government to make regulations governing the use of AI systems by public-sector entities (ministries, agencies, hospitals, school boards, municipalities as prescribed): requirements to disclose AI use, to develop and implement accountability frameworks, to take steps to manage risks, to have human oversight, and prohibitions on prescribed uses. It also addresses cyber security and children's digital information.

Adopted 25 Nov 2024 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Texas (United States) Act / statute In force Binding

Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA)

Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149, 89th Legislature)

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 2026 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Utah (United States) Act / statute In force Binding

Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149)

Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149, 2024, as amended by SB 226 and SB 332 in 2025)

Effective 1 May 2024, the Act requires a person using generative AI to interact with a consumer in a consumer transaction to disclose clearly that the consumer is interacting with AI when asked (as amended in 2025, when the interaction is high-risk or on request), and requires providers of regulated occupations (for example health and legal services) to disclose generative-AI use proactively. It states that using AI is no defence to consumer-protection violations, created the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy and an AI learning laboratory allowing regulatory mitigation agreements, and originally sunset in 2025, extended to 2027.

Applies from 1 May 2024 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Utah (United States) Act / statute In force Binding

Utah mental health chatbot law (HB 452)

Utah HB 452 (2025): Artificial Intelligence Amendments (mental health chatbots, Utah Code 13-72a)

Mental health chatbots must disclose that they are AI; suppliers may not sell or share users' health information or input, or use it to target advertising. A written policy filed with the Division of Professional Licensing gives a supplier an affirmative defence.

In force 7 May 2025 Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Sweden National strategy Adopted

AI Commission roadmap for Sweden (SOU 2024:94)

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 2024 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source
Denmark National strategy Adopted

National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (2019)

National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence

Published in March 2019, the strategy sets a responsible foundation for AI (ethical principles, data ethics council, legal clarity), more and better data, strong competences and new knowledge, and increased investment, with priority sectors of health, energy and utilities, agriculture and transport, and a set of public-sector pilot projects.

Adopted 14 Mar 2019 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source

UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI

UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (adopted by the General Conference, 23 November 2021)

The first global normative instrument on AI ethics. It sets values (human rights and dignity, environment and ecosystem flourishing, diversity and inclusiveness, peaceful and just societies) and principles (proportionality and do no harm, safety and security, fairness, sustainability, privacy, human oversight, transparency and explainability, responsibility, awareness and literacy, multi-stakeholder governance), and eleven policy action areas from ethical impact assessment and data policy to gender, education, health and the environment. UNESCO supports implementation with a Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM) and an Ethical Impact Assessment tool used by dozens of countries.

Adopted 23 Nov 2021 Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Official source

Frequently asked questions

What counts as an AI policy instrument here?

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.