Artificial IntelligenceRegulations
A worldwide reference · current to October 12, 2026

The law is catching up
to artificial intelligence.

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

Open the register Browse by topic
34national and EU regimes
11US states tracked separately
3comprehensive AI laws in force
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 AI law; bills pending, data protection reform added ADM rightsProposedPeruFirst AI law in Latin America; promotional statute with risk-based regulationIn 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; guidance and hearings, momentum without a vehicleNo 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 awaiting second reading, with classification, high-risk duties, and a registerProposedMalaysiaVoluntary 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 appliesProposedTurkeyDraft AI framework pending; 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.

European UnionSouth KoreaVietnamBrazil
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.

United KingdomUnited States (Federal)JapanSingaporeIndiaAustraliaIsraelSwitzerland
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.

China
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.

  • October 17, 2026Comments close on China's draft regulation on minors online
    The draft State Council regulation would bar virtual-companion services for minors on every network service and route AI services that could affect minors' cognition through minors mode for users under 16.
  • October 26, 2026Colorado's rulemaking hearing and final comments on the ADMT and chatbot safety rules
    The attorney general holds the rulemaking hearing in Denver at 10 am on the interim draft posted October 6; the rules under SB 26-189 and HB 26-1263 must be in place for the January 1, 2027 effective date. Written comments are due by 11:59 pm Mountain time on October 26, or by the last day of the hearing if it continues past that 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 16, 2026Expert recommendations due under California's Executive Order N-9-26
    Due within two months of the September 18 order, reported as November 16. 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 propose legislative language for a federal definition and whether it should supersede the statutory definition of AI.
  • 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.
  • 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 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.
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 after the 2026 Cybersecurity Law amendment.

South Korea

Modest by design. Administrative fines up to about 30 million won, roughly twenty thousand dollars, with a grace period through 2026 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.

By theme

Regulation by topic

All topics →

The same problem, deepfakes or hiring tools or frontier models, is handled differently across borders. Each page lines the jurisdictions up side by side.

Prohibited AI practices

Uses of AI that are banned outright.

Compared across 5 jurisdictions →

High-risk systems

AI used in consequential decisions: hiring, credit, health, and public services.

Compared across 22 jurisdictions →

Transparency and disclosure

Telling people when they are dealing with AI or AI-generated content.

Compared across 33 jurisdictions →

Deepfakes and synthetic media

Rules on AI-generated likenesses, voices, and non-consensual imagery.

Compared across 14 jurisdictions →

Biometrics and facial recognition

Facial recognition, emotion recognition, and biometric categorization.

Compared across 7 jurisdictions →

Automated decisions and employment

AI in hiring, performance, promotion, and termination.

Compared across 14 jurisdictions →

Generative AI and foundation models

Rules aimed at general-purpose models and the companies that build them.

Compared across 10 jurisdictions →
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.

September 18, 2026
Governor of California

California orders a plan for frontier-model oversight, kill switch included

Executive Order N-9-26 directs the Government Operations Agency, with the Office of Emergency Services, to convene experts and deliver within two months a plan to strengthen California's AI safety laws. It asks for recommendations on onsite independent verification at frontier labs, verified safety frameworks, an emergency shutoff for frontier models whose efficacy an independent verification organization checks on an ongoing basis, and reporting duties for loss of control. The governor vetoed a shutdown mandate in 2024's SB 1047; press reports put the deadline at November 16 and say a special legislative session is possible.

CaliforniaGenerative AI and foundation modelsHigh-risk systemsSource ↗
September 16, 2026
Daily Montanan

A federal judge blocks Montana's election deepfake law for a former legislator and his political committee

Senior US District Judge Susan Watters preliminarily enjoined enforcement of SB 25, Montana's 2025 law requiring disclaimers on election deepfakes, against a former legislator and his political committee, finding the law likely violates the First Amendment. The order covers only the named plaintiffs, so the law still applies to everyone else, and the attorney general's office is reviewing its next steps.

MontanaDeepfakes and synthetic mediaSource ↗
September 16, 2026
Governor of California

California becomes the second state to require disclosure of AI performers in ads

SB 1050, signed September 16, makes it false advertising to run a video or audio ad featuring a synthetic performer without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, in language substantially similar to 'this performance features a synthetic performer.' It takes effect January 1, 2027 and exempts ads for expressive works and translation-only uses. New York's law, in effect since June 2026, came first and exempts audio-only ads; California's covers them.

CaliforniaDeepfakes and synthetic mediaTransparency and disclosureSource ↗
September 15, 2026
Roll Call

Congress remains far from an AI law as Senate talks stall over who tests frontier models

No comprehensive federal AI bill has passed either chamber. A House bill from Reps. Obernolte and Trahan would require frontier developers to publish catastrophic-risk frameworks and would preempt state transparency, incident-reporting, and audit rules. In the Senate, a Commerce Committee draft from Sens. Thune and Klobuchar, shaped by Chair Cruz, lets companies test their own models and report results to the Commerce Secretary, while Sen. Cantwell wants testing at national labs and opposes preemption. No floor votes are expected before the midterm elections.

United StatesGenerative AI and foundation modelsSource ↗
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 three comprehensive AI laws are in force: the European Union AI Act, South Korea's AI Basic Act, and Vietnam's 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 pause on enforcement in April 2026 before the state replaced that law. 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.