Search and filter source-backed AI laws, regulations, standards, guidance and consultations. Each record shows its status, key dates, verification state and 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 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 2025Pending review (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
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 2025Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
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 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Washington ESHB 2225: AI companion chatbots (Chapter 168, Laws of 2026)
Operators must disclose that a companion chatbot is AI, repeat the notice hourly for known minors, limit sexual content and manipulative engagement tactics for minors, and keep and publish a self-harm protocol with crisis referrals. A violation is a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
Applies from 1 Jan 2027Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Endorsed at the 4th ASEAN Digital Ministers' Meeting in February 2024, the guide sets seven guiding principles (transparency and explainability, fairness and equity, security and safety, human-centricity, privacy and data governance, accountability and integrity, robustness and reliability) and a four-part governance framework (internal governance structures, human involvement in decision-making, operations management, stakeholder interaction), with national and regional recommendations including an ASEAN working group on AI governance.
Adopted 2 Feb 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework
Published 11 June 2024, the framework gives organisations that procure, implement and use AI systems involving personal data recommendations in four areas: AI strategy and governance (an AI governance committee, procurement due diligence), risk assessment and human oversight (a risk-based approach with levels of human involvement), customisation and implementation of AI models (data preparation, testing, security), and communication and engagement with stakeholders (transparency, explainability, opt-out, feedback). It builds on the 2021 Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of AI.
Adopted 11 Jun 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
PDPC Advisory Guidelines on Use of Personal Data in AI Recommendation and Decision Systems
These advisory guidelines explain how the Personal Data Protection Act applies when organisations use personal data to develop, test and deploy AI systems that make recommendations, predictions or decisions. They clarify the consent obligation and relevant exceptions (business improvement and research), what to include in notifications to individuals, accountability practices such as documenting data provenance and model development, and expectations for service providers building bespoke AI systems.
Adopted 1 Mar 2024Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
A governance framework for AI agents that reason and act on a user's behalf, in four areas: assessing and bounding risks upfront, making humans meaningfully accountable, technical controls across the agent lifecycle, and enabling end-user responsibility. IMDA treats it as a living document and has since added case studies and input from more than 50 organisations.
Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Model AI Governance Framework (Second Edition) and Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI
Singapore's Model AI Governance Framework is a voluntary, sector-agnostic guide for organisations deploying AI. The second edition (January 2020) covers four areas: internal governance structures and measures, determining the level of human involvement in AI-augmented decision-making, operations management (data, model development, monitoring), and stakeholder interaction and communication. The May 2024 Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI extends it with nine dimensions including accountability, data, trusted development and deployment, incident reporting, testing and assurance, security, content provenance, safety and alignment research, and AI for the public good.
Adopted 21 Jan 2020Verified (reviewed by Bhaskar Bhatt; a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)Official source
Starter Kit for Testing Agentic Systems for Safety and Reliability
A practical reference for organisations starting to test AI agents that reason, act on a user's behalf, use tools and access data. It sets out four steps (identify risks such as erroneous or unauthorised actions; design and run realistic tests without real-world harm; analyse results and operational logs; monitor and retest continuously), tests the agent's whole trajectory of reasoning and actions rather than only its output, and suggests metrics such as tool-use accuracy, handoff accuracy and human-intervention rates. It extends the agentic AI governance framework and builds on the LLM starter kit.
Pending 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.
