South Africa — Draft National AI Policy
The draft National AI Policy was gazetted on 10 April 2026. After fictitious references were identified the Minister announced the withdrawal on 26 April 2026, Cabinet approved it on 5 June, and Notice 3880 was withdrawn by gazette on 12 June 2026, which is the operative act. The tracker separates that withdrawn draft from existing law, including POPIA.
Read the tracker →EU — Artificial Intelligence Act
The EU AI Act is Regula's primary detection target. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 is in force and sets 2 December 2027 for Annex III high-risk provisions and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I product path. Article 50 generally has applied since 2 August 2026, with a specific 2 December 2026 transition for providers of Article 50(2) systems already on the market. Regula reports indicators; it does not decide legal classification or applicable duties.
See Regula CLI →UAE & GCC — sector rules and cross-border exposure
The tracker separates UAE sector, data-protection and free-zone requirements from EU exposure. An EU AI Act territorial-scope analysis depends on the operator, market and output-use facts in Article 2; merely serving a globally accessible product is not itself the complete test. The page records what Regula can map and what requires UAE, sector, data-protection and qualified legal review.
Read the UAE tracker →United Kingdom — AI regulation framework
The UK has taken a principles-based, sector-specific approach distinct from the EU AI Act. ICO leads on data protection and automated decision-making (UK GDPR Art. 22), DSIT on cross-cutting policy, with FCA, MHRA, Ofcom and CMA applying their own mandates. Live tracker plus ICO/DSIT baseline plus what UK organisations should do today.
Read the tracker →Brazil — Marco Legal da IA & LGPD
PL 2338/2023 (Marco Legal da IA) passed the Senate on 10 December 2024 and is in a Special Commission at the Chamber of Deputies. LGPD already applies to AI via Article 20 (automated decisions), Article 38 (impact reports), and Article 11 (sensitive data). Regula's framework crosswalk covers both LGPD and Marco Legal. Penalties if enacted: up to R$50M or 2% annual revenue.
Read the tracker →Colorado — SB 205 Repealed, Replaced by SB 189
SB 24-205 (the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act) was repealed in May 2026 before taking effect. It was replaced by SB 26-189, a narrower disclosure-focused regime whose duties apply from 1 January 2027 — developer documentation, consumer notice, and correction and human-review rights, enforced by the AG. The original SB 24-205 duties (developer reasonable-care, deployer impact assessments) were not reenacted. This page documents the legislative history and what SB 189 requires.
Read the tracker →South Korea — AI Basic Act
The second major horizontal AI statute after the EU AI Act took effect on 22 January 2026 with its Enforcement Decree. It defines high-impact AI by use and impact. The separate Article 32 safety path requires all three Decree Article 24 criteria: at least 10²⁶ training FLOPs, current frontier-level configuration and operation, and risk likely to have a widespread and significant impact. The tracker also covers Article 31 transparency and the conditional Article 36 domestic-agent rule.
Read the tracker →United States — federal & other state laws
Beyond Colorado, the US approach remains a patchwork: federal NIST AI RMF 1.0 and the 2024 GenAI Profile (NIST AI 600-1) serve as voluntary frameworks, while Texas, California, Connecticut and New York have passed or proposed state-level AI laws. Regula's framework crosswalk maps findings to NIST AI 600-1's 12 GenAI risks. Additional state pages will land as statutes are enacted.
Coming soonAfrican Union — Continental AI Strategy
The AU Continental AI Strategy (2024) sets the continental direction and several SADC member states are developing national responses. A regional tracker page is on the roadmap once the South Africa gazette clarifies the baseline.
Coming soonOur coverage principles
Every claim on this site about regulation is either (a) checkable against the actual legislation or an official government source, or (b) explicitly labelled as secondary reporting with the secondary source named. Where a jurisdiction's text is not in the public domain, we say so, label the claim, and commit to verifying it against the primary source as soon as it publishes. We would rather publish a short page with clear provenance than a long page with silent assumptions.
If a jurisdiction matters to you and it is not yet on this list, open an issue. We prioritise coverage by reader demand and by the quality of the primary source we can cite.
Last reviewed: 26 August 2026 · Report a correction