Artificial IntelligenceRegulations
A worldwide reference · current to October 26, 2026

The law is catching up
to artificial intelligence.

Every major jurisdiction, cited to primary text, kept current.

34national and EU regimes
11US states tracked separately
3comprehensive AI laws in force among tracked regimes
7%of global turnover, the top EU fine
The register

Every regime, at a glance

Search and filter all →

National and EU regimes, with status set by binding law alone. The United States sits as one entry, because its federal posture and its state laws are two different questions. Select any row for the governing laws, timeline, penalties, and primary sources.

FlagJurisdictionRegulatory approachStatus
ChinaExtensive binding sectoral rules; no single comprehensive actIn forceEuropean UnionComprehensive, horizontal, risk-based statutePhasing inSouth KoreaComprehensive risk-based act with a light enforcement postureIn forceUnited KingdomSectoral, principles-based; no horizontal AI act by designNo comprehensive lawUnited StatesState legislation and a federal preemption fight; no federal AI actNo comprehensive lawAustraliaNo AI act yet; existing laws plus guidance, with mandatory data-center and frontier AI standards planned after consultationNo comprehensive lawBrazilComprehensive EU-style bill advancing through the legislatureProposedCanadaProposed federal act lapsed; voluntary code plus provincial rulesLapsed / failedCouncil of EuropeFirst binding international AI treaty, awaiting the ratifications that bring it into forceProposedJapanInnovation-first framework law; light-touch and non-punitiveIn forceMexicoNo general AI law; AI rules for performers' image and voice in force, many bills pendingNo comprehensive lawPeruFramework AI law with a risk-based regulation phasing in by sectorIn forceSaudi ArabiaCentralized governance through SDAIA; principles and drafts, no AI actNo comprehensive lawSwitzerlandSectoral counter-model to the EU, with a treaty-implementation bill dueProposedTaiwanFramework statute; principles in force, obligations to followIn forceUAELayered model with charters and strategy federally, binding rules in the DIFC, and guidance in financeNo comprehensive lawVietnamComprehensive, risk-based AI law with extraterritorial reachIn forceArgentinaNo AI law; an AI framework bill won a 2025 committee report but no floor voteNo comprehensive lawChileEU-inspired risk-based bill in the Senate; updated national policyProposedColombiaNew AI bill in committee after earlier bills were archived; no comprehensive lawProposedEgyptStrategy, charter, and governance framework; data protection law binds, no AI actNo comprehensive lawHong KongNo AI law; dense sectoral guidance, hardest in financeNo comprehensive lawIndiaPrinciples-based guidelines plus targeted synthetic-media rulesNo comprehensive lawIndonesiaRoadmap and ethics guidance; binding rules in developmentProposedIsraelDeliberately decentralized, with sectoral regulators, soft law, and no AI actNo comprehensive lawKenyaSenate AI Bill at second reading, with a committee report tabled in October 2026; data protection law binds nowProposedMalaysiaVoluntary guidelines; draft risk-based AI Governance Bill awaiting introduction in ParliamentProposedNew ZealandNo AI-specific law; existing technology-neutral statutesNo comprehensive lawNigeriaRisk-based AI bill that NITDA would enforce; data protection law binds nowProposedSingaporeVoluntary frameworks and testing tools; binding AI rules limited to deepfakesNo comprehensive lawSouth Africa2026 draft AI policy withdrawn; POPIA binds, no AI legislation proposedNo comprehensive lawSpainEU AI Act applies directly; national enforcement and deepfake bills lapsed with the October 2026 dissolutionPhasing inThailandDraft AI Act through public hearing, awaiting Cabinet; data protection already appliesProposedTurkeyAI bills pending in committee; data protection and cybersecurity law bind nowProposed
In forcePartially in forcePhasing inProposedNo comprehensive lawRepealed / replacedLapsed / failed
United States, state by state. The tracker covers eleven states with broad acts, single-issue statutes, a right-to-compute law, and one vetoed bill. Most of these laws follow the resident, wherever the company sits. Open the state tracker to sort and filter them. State tracker →

AI outran the law for a decade. Now the European Union, South Korea, and Vietnam have comprehensive AI statutes in force, and the United States is fighting itself over whether its state AI laws should exist at all.

No global rulebook exists. National laws reach past their borders, so global products build to the strictest regime they touch, usually Brussels, and subtract. Every jurisdiction on the register is filed the same way and dated, with every deadline through 2028, the penalty table, every law by name, and the vocabulary one click down.

The two models

Two ways to regulate a technology

Almost every regime falls into one of two shapes, with China standing apart. Knowing which shape governs you tells you where to look first.

Model 01

Comprehensive and risk-based

One law covers the whole economy and scales its obligations to how much harm a use could cause. Banned uses at the top, heavy duties for high-risk uses, light disclosure for the rest. The template is the EU AI Act. These regimes tend to reach across borders and carry the largest fines.

Model 02

Sectoral and principles-based

No binding AI-specific rulebook. Existing regulators apply broad principles or established statutes to whatever AI does inside their remit. Lighter and more adaptable, and harder to map, because the rule that governs you depends on what the system is used for.

A model of its own

China

China fits neither. It runs the most operationally demanding regime in the world through a stack of binding rules on recommendation algorithms, deep synthesis, generative services, and content labeling, all tied to content control and national security, and all enforced without a single comprehensive act.

What is coming

Key deadlines through 2028

Full calendar →

The dates that change how AI is built and shipped. Through January 2027 most of them fall in US states, and the EU's December 2 ban is the main European date.

  • November 1, 2026Egypt's data-protection transition period ends
    The one-year transition under the executive regulations to Law 151 of 2020 (Decree 816/2025) closes; law-firm analyses put the date at October 31 or November 1, 2026.
  • November 1, 2026Virginia: report due on independent verification of AI models
    The Joint Commission on Technology and Science must report on a framework for independent organizations that would verify AI models and applications against safety standards, under Chapters 425 and 426 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly.
  • November 2, 2026China's legislature takes up ratification of the World AI Cooperation Organization agreement
    The NPC Standing Committee meets from November 2 to 6; its recommended agenda includes the State Council's request to ratify the agreement establishing the World AI Cooperation Organization.
  • November 16, 2026Expert recommendations due under California's Executive Order N-9-26
    The order sets November 16 for the recommendations. Four experts named on September 23 work on onsite verification at frontier labs, an emergency shutoff for frontier models, and incident reporting that includes loss of control.
  • November 18, 2026Ninth Circuit argument in x.AI v. Bonta, the challenge to California's AB 2013
    xAI appeals the March 4, 2026 denial of a preliminary injunction against California's training-data transparency law, which it challenges on First Amendment and trade-secret grounds.
  • November 20, 2026The UK Information Commission's call for evidence on agentic AI closes
    Six weeks of evidence from developers, deployers, and experts on the data protection risks of agentic AI, feeding the regulator's forthcoming statutory code of practice on AI and automated decision-making.
  • November 28, 2026Proposed federal definition of 'super intelligence' due under Executive Order 14434
    The science adviser's 60-day deadline to submit to the President proposed legislative language for a federal definition and whether it should supersede the statutory definition of AI; the order does not require publication.
  • November 29, 2026Spain votes in a general election after its AI bills lapsed
    The Cortes were dissolved on October 6, 2026, which ended the AI governance bill, the honor and image bill, and the minors bill. The new chambers meet on December 23; a new government would have to re-table the texts.
  • November 2026New York opens registration for large frontier developers under the RAISE Act
    The governor's September 21 announcement: large frontier developers register with the state from November 2026, ahead of compliance from January 2027, overseen by the DIGIT office in the Department of Financial Services.
  • November 30, 2026Australia's parliamentary AI committee delivers its final report
    The Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, which wrote to the Prime Minister on October 12 recommending incident reporting by frontier labs and embedded independent evaluators, must report by this date.
  • December 2, 2026EU ban on non-consensual intimate imagery generators; watermark grace period ends
    The Digital Omnibus's Article 5 addition takes effect and the transitional accommodation on marking closes.
  • December 7, 2026Comments close on Treasury's proposed ban on US investment in super intelligence development in countries of concern
    The proposed rules under the COINS Act would make the development of any SI system by a covered foreign person in a country of concern a prohibited technology for US investors, with no technical threshold.
  • December 10, 2026Australia's Privacy Act transparency duties for automated decisions apply
    Organizations covered by the Privacy Act must describe in their privacy policies the kinds of personal information used in automated decisions that could significantly affect individuals' rights or interests, and the kinds of decisions made.
  • End of 2026Switzerland's AI consultation bill due
    The FDJP's draft implementing the Council of Europe convention, covering transparency, data protection, non-discrimination, and oversight.
  • January 1, 2027Colorado's ADMT and chatbot safety laws, New York's RAISE Act, Illinois' AI Safety Measures Act, companion-chatbot rules in Connecticut and Washington, California's SB 1050 and 2026 package, and Utah's AI provenance law take effect
    Colorado's replacement statute, New York's frontier transparency law, and Illinois' frontier safety act all begin. Companion-chatbot rules start in Colorado, Connecticut, and Washington, California ads that use a synthetic performer must disclose it, and California bans companion chatbots in toys. Utah requires large generative AI providers to embed provenance data in AI images, video, and audio. California's AB 1609, AB 1979, SB 503, AB 1331, AB 1883, AB 2713, SB 951, SB 1111, and SB 1159 also start, and businesses that use automated decisionmaking technology for significant decisions must meet California's CCPA rules on notice, opt-out, and access.
Enforcement

The teeth vary wildly

All 45 compared →

Headlines fixate on the size of European fines, but the real deterrent differs by jurisdiction. In some places the risk is a fine; in others it is losing the right to operate, or a class action.

European Union

Up to 35 million euros or 7 percent of worldwide turnover for a banned use, the steepest fines in force anywhere. They bind companies based outside the Union.

China

No headline fine, but harder teeth in practice: service suspension, content takedowns, and revoked filings, with more immediate penalties since the Cybersecurity Law amendment took effect in January 2026.

South Korea

Modest by design. Administrative fines up to about 30 million won, roughly twenty thousand dollars, with a grace period of at least a year to ease companies in.

United States

No federal AI fine exists. Exposure runs through state attorneys general, the FTC's deception authority, and private suits under biometric laws such as Illinois BIPA, which carries statutory damages for each violation.

News digest

What changed recently

Full digest →

Live headlines refresh automatically every six hours. Below them, original summaries of the moves that matter, each linked to the source.

October 26, 2026
Federal Register

Treasury proposes to bar US investment in 'super intelligence' development in countries of concern

Treasury's proposed rules under the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act, announced October 22 and published October 26, would make the development of any super intelligence (SI) system by a covered foreign person in a country of concern, such as China, a prohibited technology for US investors. The proposal moves AI out of the notification tier of the existing outbound rules, sets no technical threshold, uses the term the September 29 executive order prescribes for AI, and adds biotechnology to the covered sectors. Comments are due December 7, 2026.

October 23, 2026
Cyberspace Administration of China

China's informatization plan for 2026 to 2030 calls for foundational AI legislation

The national informatization plan for the 15th five-year period, published by the CAC, calls for advancing foundational legislation on AI alongside the digital economy, telecommunications, and cybercrime, for optimizing the filing system for generative AI, and for assessment and filing of new forms such as AI agents, on-device large models, and anthropomorphic interactive services. The same day the State Council General Office published opinions on AI and employment, dated October 16, that call for employment-risk assessments of AI projects in market-access fields that could cause large job losses and for action against algorithm-driven hiring discrimination.

October 23, 2026
Office of the Texas Attorney General

Texas sues OpenAI and Sam Altman over ChatGPT's safety

The Attorney General sued OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman, in Collin County district court under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that the company misled users about ChatGPT's risks and failed to protect Texans, including children. The petition, which also cites the SCOPE Act on minors' online safety, asks for civil penalties and injunctions that would block minors' access to ChatGPT and require a court-appointed evaluator to approve new models. It follows suits against OpenAI by at least eight other states, announced on October 14.

October 21, 2026
Council of the European Union

EU governments back letting AI developers rely on legitimate interest under the GDPR

Member states' ambassadors agreed the Council's negotiating mandate on the Digital Omnibus on data, privacy, and cyber reporting, a separate file from the AI Act amendments that took effect on July 27 as Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. In the Council text, personal data may be processed for developing and operating an AI system or model on the basis of a legitimate interest of the controller or a third party, unless other law requires consent or the person's rights override it, particularly for children, and a new exception covers special-category data found incidentally in training data, which must be removed or protected. The European Parliament has not yet adopted its position, so negotiations have not started.

How to read this

Common questions

Is there a global AI law?
No single global AI law exists, and none is close. As of October 2026 comprehensive AI laws are in force in only a handful of places, among them the European Union (the AI Act), South Korea (the AI Basic Act), and Vietnam (its AI Law). Taiwan, Peru, and Japan have framework statutes, China enforces an extensive set of binding sectoral rules, the United States has no comprehensive federal AI statute and regulates mainly through state law, and countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Singapore rely on existing regulators and voluntary frameworks.
Which country has the strictest AI regulation?
The EU AI Act sets the strictest binding legal benchmark, with fines up to 35 million euros or 7 percent of worldwide turnover, which is why most global companies build to it. China's regime is often the most demanding to operate under, because of pre-deployment security assessment and dual visible-and-embedded content labeling.
Do US state AI laws still apply after the December 2025 federal executive order?
Yes. The federal preemption effort is ongoing and unsettled. State AI laws remain enforceable unless a court blocks them or Congress passes a preempting statute. In September 2026 a federal judge barred Montana from enforcing its election deepfake law against a former legislator and his political committee, in a private First Amendment suit. The Justice Department's first intervention, in a suit against Colorado's original act, led to an agreed court order in April 2026 that bars enforcement of that act and of its 2026 replacement for conduct through 14 days after a ruling on xAI's preliminary-injunction motion. The prudent course is to keep complying with applicable state law while tracking the litigation.
Does a company outside the EU have to comply with the EU AI Act?
Often yes. The Act applies wherever the provider or deployer sits if the system's output is used in the EU. A model built and hosted elsewhere still falls in scope once its results reach users in the Union.
How current is this resource?
Each jurisdiction page carries a date it was last reviewed, and the register reflects binding law as of that review. AI law moves fast: Colorado repealed its landmark act before it took effect, and the EU deferred its high-risk deadlines by more than a year. Always confirm against the linked primary source before you rely on an entry.