SQ Magazine The Tech Index AI Regulation Tracker
AI Regulation Tracker
Where AI regulation actually stands, jurisdiction by jurisdiction: what is in force, what is only proposed, who enforces it, and what breaking it costs. Every row is re-verified on a regular cycle.
13 jurisdictions last verified 16 Oct 2026
- Jurisdictions
- 13
- Binding today
- 4
- Re-verify cycle
- 90day
All records
13 jurisdictions, A to Z. Filter or search below.
How to use this tracker
Search & filter
Filter by status or approach, or use the search box to find a specific jurisdiction.
Explore the data
Sort by newest first, oldest first or A to Z.
Inspect records
Select Detail on any row to open its full record, then copy a link that opens that row directly.
Verify sources
Every row links the primary source it came from, most often industry.gov.au.
| Jurisdiction | Status | Framework | Approach | Key authority | Applies from | Source | Record detail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | No AI-specific law (guardrails shelved Dec 2025) | National AI Plan (December 2025); Guidance for AI Adoption (AI6) | Principles only | Office of AI (announced Jul 2026, PM&C); sector regulators; AI Safety Institute | not available | Department of Industry, Science and Resources | |
|
|||||||
| Brazil | Proposed (Senate passed; Chamber pending) | Bill No. 2338/2023 (proposed AI regulatory framework) | Risk-based tiers | ANPD as coordinator under the bill, once enacted | not available | Senado Federal | |
|
|||||||
| Canada | No AI-specific law (AIDA died; not reintroduced) | Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (part of Bill C-27) - died on prorogation, January 2025 | Principles only | No AI regulator; existing federal regulators and the ADM Directive for government systems | not available | Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada | |
|
|||||||
| China | In force (layered measures, no single act) | Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services, with deep-synthesis, algorithm-filing and AI-content labeling rules | Use-case limits | Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), with co-issuing ministries | 15 Aug 2023 | Cyberspace Administration of China | |
|
|||||||
| European Union | Partially in force (high-risk deferred to 2027) | Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), as amended by the 2026 Digital Omnibus | Risk-based tiers | European AI Office; national market surveillance authorities | 2 Aug 2025 | EUR-Lex | |
|
|||||||
| India | No AI-specific law (guidelines; no standalone law) | India AI Governance Guidelines (MeitY, November 2025) | Principles only | Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) / IndiaAI Mission | not available | Press Information Bureau | |
|
|||||||
| Japan | In force (promotion law, no penalties) | Act on Promotion of Research and Development, and Utilization of Artificial Intelligence-related Technology (Act No. 53 of 2025) | Principles only | AI Strategic Headquarters (Cabinet), chaired by the Prime Minister | 1 Sep 2025 | Japanese Law Translation (Ministry of Justice) | |
|
|||||||
| Singapore | No AI-specific law (voluntary frameworks) | Model AI Governance Framework, third edition covering agentic AI (2026) | Principles only | IMDA and PDPC; MAS for the financial sector | not available | IMDA | |
|
|||||||
| South Korea | In force (fines deferred through 2026) | Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust (AI Basic Act) | Risk-based tiers | Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) | 22 Jan 2026 | International Trade Administration | |
|
|||||||
| Switzerland | No AI-specific law (CoE convention bill due 2026) | Federal Council decision (Feb 2025): ratify the Council of Europe AI Convention; sectoral implementation | Sectoral rules | FDJP drafting the implementing bill; sector regulators enforce existing law | not available | Swiss Federal Chancellery | |
|
|||||||
| United Arab Emirates | No AI-specific law (federal AI authority, Jun 2026) | UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI (2024); Federal Authority for AI and Data announced 14 Jun 2026 | Principles only | Federal Authority for Artificial Intelligence and Data (announced); Minister of State for AI | not available | UAE Government portal | |
|
|||||||
| United Kingdom | No AI-specific law (principles-led; no AI bill) | A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation (2023 White Paper); Regulating for Growth Bill announced 2026 | Principles only | DSIT-coordinated sector regulators (ICO, FCA, MHRA, Ofcom) | not available | GOV.UK | |
|
|||||||
| United States | No AI-specific law (states lead; federal EO push) | Executive Order 14365, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (11 Dec 2025) | Sectoral rules | No general AI regulator; sectoral agencies (FTC, FDA) under existing law | not available | Federal Register | |
|
|||||||
No records match the current filters.
About this data
- Scope
- Jurisdictions with an AI-specific instrument, plus those where the checked finding is that none binds.
- Key facts
- 13 jurisdictions.
- The most common position is none, in 8 of 13 jurisdictions.
- 4 have an AI instrument in force or partly in force, and 3 of those carry enforceable sanctions, in some cases through existing law rather than the AI instrument itself. An act that is in force is not the same as one that can be enforced, and this table records the difference.
- 4 of 13 disclose a date the rules take effect; the rest publish none, and this table leaves those cells empty rather than estimating them.
- This cycle
- Tracker launch: 13 jurisdictions, verified against primary instruments on publication day. Three regimes are in force (China, South Korea, Japan) and the EU applies in part, with high-risk duties deferred to December 2027 by the 2026 Omnibus. Brazil is the only bill mid-passage. Most jurisdictions still regulate through principles or sector rules rather than an AI act, and only the EU and South Korea currently attach fines to a general AI law.
- Reading the table
- Status reflects what binds on the date shown, per the instrument’s own commencement provisions. Penalties are quoted in the currency the instrument states. Informational only, not legal advice.
Using this data in research or journalism?
Quoting a figure with a link to this page needs no permission. Reuse of the compiled dataset is licensed under CC BY 4.0: credit SQ Magazine and link back.
What the data shows
The charts below redraw the table above as the trends and comparisons a table cannot show.
Regulatory approaches
How jurisdictions regulate, separate from how far along they are.
Status by region
Jurisdiction count per region, split by status.
- In force
- Partially in force
- Proposed
- No AI-specific law
Regulation timeline
2023
🇨🇳 China
2025
🇪🇺 European Union
🇯🇵 Japan
2026
🇰🇷 South Korea
9 jurisdictions carry no dated framework. Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Singapore, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States are tracked in the table with a verified legal status, but no single commencement date could be confirmed from a primary source.
Verification ledger
2 most recent of 2 logged updates · RSSLatest Re-verified
Re-verify pass: 13 rows due. 1 re-confirmed against their cited source, 0 updated, 12 not re-checked this pass and left at their old date.
Added
Tracker launched: 13 jurisdiction records published, each verified against the primary instrument the same day. Sources were link-checked before insertion; the EU record reflects the 2026 Digital Omnibus deferrals.
How this tracker is maintained
Every status is read off the instrument itself, and says what binds on the date shown rather than what has been announced.
-
Sourced
Each row traces to the instrument as published: the regulation or statute text, or the regulator’s own notice. Commentary and law-firm summaries are useful for finding a change, never for stating one.
-
Dated
Status answers one question: what binds today. A framework that has passed but does not yet apply reads “Adopted, pending”, and a phased regime carries the date of the phase now in force with the full schedule in its detail.
-
Re-checked
Reviewed on a 90-day cycle and immediately when a tracked jurisdiction commences a new phase. A status that cannot be re-confirmed against a current source stays flagged until it is.
- Why does the EU read “Partially in force”?
- Because that is what Article 113 says. The AI Act’s prohibitions and AI-literacy duties applied from 2 February 2025, most of the Regulation applies from 2 August 2026, and Article 6(1) from 2 August 2027. A single “in force” flag would tell you the high-risk obligations already bite. They do not yet.
- What does “No AI-specific law” mean?
- That existing sectoral or data-protection law applies and no AI-specific instrument does. It is a finding we checked for, not a gap in our research, and it is often the most useful answer on the page.
- Why is a jurisdiction I expected missing?
- Because we could not establish its status from a primary source yet. A jurisdiction whose position we cannot state does not get a row rather than a guessed one, so the absence is deliberate.
- Why are penalties not converted to dollars?
- A penalty is quoted in the currency the instrument states, because converting it changes the figure. The EU ceiling is EUR 35 000 000 or 7% of worldwide turnover, and that is how it is written.
This is informational content and does not constitute legal advice. AI rules are moving quickly, commencement dates shift, and obligations can vary by the role you play (provider, deployer, importer) within a single framework. Confirm current duties with a qualified professional or the named authority before acting.
