Comparative policy map

Jurisdictions

Countries, the EU and California. Multilateral instruments stay on their own policy pages; they are not treated as jurisdictions.

Jurisdiction

EU

The EU regulates AI through directly applicable legislation, coordinated enforcement and sector-specific law.

Jurisdiction

United States

United States AI policy combines federal executive action, agency standards, congressional proposals and state law.

Jurisdiction

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom relies on existing regulators, central coordination and targeted legislation rather than one general AI act.

Jurisdiction

China

China governs AI through national laws, administrative measures, technical standards and service-specific rules.

Jurisdiction

California

California regulates frontier AI developers through state statute alongside federal and local rules.

Jurisdiction

Canada

Canada governs AI through privacy law, sectoral rules and voluntary codes rather than a single federal AI statute currently in force.

Jurisdiction

Japan

Japan coordinates AI policy through soft-law guidelines, promotion legislation and ministry-led standards work.

Jurisdiction

South Korea

South Korea combines industrial promotion with statutory duties for high-impact and generative AI under the AI Basic Act.

Jurisdiction

Singapore

Singapore relies on voluntary model frameworks, testing toolkits and sector guidance for AI governance.

Jurisdiction

Australia

Australia develops AI policy through federal consultation, voluntary standards and existing consumer and privacy law.

Jurisdiction

India

India addresses AI through MeitY advisories, digital public infrastructure policy and sectoral regulation.

Jurisdiction

Brazil

Brazil debates comprehensive AI legislation while applying existing consumer, data-protection and sectoral rules.