Which countries address AI bias and discrimination?
Rules on algorithmic discrimination, bias and fairness in AI systems and automated decisions.
8 of 21 reviewed jurisdictions address this in at least one tracked instrument. Updated 2026-09-26.
Each answer cites the instrument it rests on; open it for the provision and the full analysis. Whether a rule is binding law, a bill or guidance comes from the instrument's type and status, not from wording.
“Not found” means none of the instruments we track for that jurisdiction addresses the topic. It is not a finding that no such rule exists.
Yes — binding law in force (6)
Argentina
Yes — binding law in forceState AI systems must seek inclusion and equity by reducing unwanted bias and avoiding discriminatory practices.
- Argentina - Santa Fe - AI Adoption Protocol (2726/2025), Anexo, Artículo 4° — Decree, In Force
- Argentina - Buenos Aires - AI Guidelines (4/2025), Key Focus Areas — Risk assessment and training — Regulation, In Force
- Argentina - AI Regulation Framework (2505-D-2023), Artículo 4.2 — Bill, Proposed
- and 7 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
4 of 4 regions address this
- Buenos AiresGuidance or policy only
Public agents must identify and mitigate algorithmic bias that could cause discriminatory public-service outcomes.
- Argentina - Buenos Aires - Generative AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- JujuyGuidance or policy only
AI use must uphold fairness, impartiality, and non-discrimination, with vigilance against algorithmic bias.
- Argentina - Jujuy - AI Use Protocol (Acordada N° 31/2025), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-07
- Río NegroGuidance or policy only
Users must work to mitigate AI risks including biases that could produce unfair outcomes.
- Argentina - Río Negro - AI Good Practices Protocol (RAI-AR-RN-PDBPPXX-2024), Compliance Checklist — Guideline, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
- San JuanPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
AI systems must use high-quality, representative training data to avoid reproducing prejudice against marginalized groups.
- Argentina - San Juan - AI Judicial Protocol (2024), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
Brazil
Yes — binding law in forceAI outputs supporting judicial decisions must preserve equality, non-discrimination and pluralism.
- Brazil - AI Governance in Judiciary (615/2025), Art. 8º — Regulation, In Force
- Brazil - São Paulo - AI Surveillance Program (63.552/2024), Compliance Checklist — Decree, In Force
- Brazil - National AI Regulation (2.338/2023), Art. 3º, IV — Bill, Under Review
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
China
Yes — binding law in forceProviders must monitor risks during operation and promptly identify and correct system deviations.
- China - Anthropomorphic AI Services Regulation, 第九条 — Regulation, In Force
- China AI Content Labeling Rules, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- China - Generative AI Services Management, 第四条第（二）项 — Regulation, In Force
- and 4 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
0 of 4 regions address this
- BeijingNot found in the instruments we track
- ShanghaiNot found in the instruments we track
- ShenzhenNot found in the instruments we track
- ZhejiangNot found in the instruments we track
Kazakhstan
Yes — binding law in forceAI systems must ensure fairness and equality while excluding discrimination on protected or other grounds.
- Kazakhstan - AI Regulation (2025), Статья 6 — Act, In Force (Amended)
- Kazakhstan - AI Regulatory Amendments (232-VIII), Article 641-1 — Act, In Force
- Kazakhstan Digital Code, Monitoring and Evaluation — Act, Adopted (from 2026-07-01)
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10
United States
Yes — binding law in forceMortgage originators and secondary market issuers must use AVM controls that comply with nondiscrimination laws.
- AVM Quality Control Standards Rule, III.B.3. Specifying a Nondiscrimination Quality Control Fact — Regulation, In Force
- US Federal Government Woke AI Prevention Order, Sec. 3(b) — Decree, In Force
- CMS 2024 Medicare Advantage Policy and AI Guidance, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- and 15 more
Status verified 2026-09-07
11 of 51 states address this
- AlabamaAdopted — not yet in force
Insurers must annually certify that AI is applied fairly and does not unlawfully discriminate.
- Alabama AI Health Coverage Act, Section 1(b)(2)c. — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2026-10-01)
Status verified 2026-09-08
- AlaskaNot found in the instruments we track
- ArizonaNot found in the instruments we track
- ArkansasNot found in the instruments we track
- CaliforniaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
AI vendors must not deploy models displaying bias without counteracting mechanisms and technologies.
- California AI Protections Executive Order, Sources and References — Decree, In Force
- California Generative AI Procurement Order, TEXT — Decree, In Force
- California Chatbot Child Safety Bill, Section 22612(b) — Bill, Adopted
Status verified 2026-09-08
- ColoradoPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Deploying high-risk AI systems that result in unlawful algorithmic discrimination is forbidden.
- Colorado AI Act Delay, Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
- United States - Colorado - AI in Insurance (SB 21-169), Colorado Insurance Regulation 10-1-1 — Act, In Force (Amended)
- Colorado AI in Healthcare Act, Compliance Checklist — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-01-01)
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
- ConnecticutPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Automated employment decision processes must not produce discriminatory outcomes.
- Connecticut AI Responsibility and Transparency Act, Compliance Checklist — Act, In Force
- United States - Connecticut - AI Impact Assessment (Public Act 23-16), Compliance Checklist — Act, In Force
- United States - Connecticut - AI and Data Privacy Act (SB 1103), Sec. 2(c)(1) — Act, In Force
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
- DelawareNot found in the instruments we track
- FloridaNot found in the instruments we track
- GeorgiaGuidance or policy only
AI systems must undergo regular audits addressing ethical issues, including bias.
- United States - Georgia - AI Governance Guidelines (2024), Monitoring and Evaluation — Guideline, In Force (Amended)
- United States - Georgia - AI Implementation Report (SR 476), Monitoring and Evaluation — Policy, Adopted (from 2024-12-03)
- United States - Georgia - AI in Courts — Policy, Adopted (from 2025-07-03)
Status verified 2026-09-09
- HawaiiNot found in the instruments we track
- IdahoNot found in the instruments we track
- IllinoisPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Employers solely using AI analysis for initial screening must collect and report applicants' race and ethnicity.
- United States - Illinois - AI Video Interview Regulation (2019), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
- United States - Illinois - AI Employment Regulation (HB 3773), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
- Illinois AI Healthcare Downcoding Bill, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Awaiting Entry (from 2028-01-01)
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
- IndianaNot found in the instruments we track
- IowaNot found in the instruments we track
- KansasNot found in the instruments we track
- KentuckyPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Risk-management policies for high-risk AI must identify, mitigate, and document actual or potential bias.
- United States - Kentucky - AI Governance Act (SB 4), Section 3(8)(a)2 — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-10
- LouisianaNot found in the instruments we track
- MaineNot found in the instruments we track
- MarylandNot found in the instruments we track
- MassachusettsNot found in the instruments we track
- MichiganNot found in the instruments we track
- MinnesotaNot found in the instruments we track
- MississippiNot found in the instruments we track
- MissouriNot found in the instruments we track
- MontanaNot found in the instruments we track
- NebraskaNot found in the instruments we track
- NevadaNot found in the instruments we track
- New HampshireNot found in the instruments we track
- New JerseyGuidance or policy only
It applies anti-discrimination prohibitions to algorithmic bias and discriminatory automated outcomes.
- United States - New Jersey - Algorithmic Discrimination Guidance (2025), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- New MexicoNot found in the instruments we track
- New YorkPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Employers and employment agencies must obtain independent bias audits assessing AEDT disparate impact.
- United States - New York - Employment Decision Tools (LL144), Overview — Regulation, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- North CarolinaNot found in the instruments we track
- North DakotaNot found in the instruments we track
- OhioNot found in the instruments we track
- OklahomaNot found in the instruments we track
- OregonNot found in the instruments we track
- PennsylvaniaNot found in the instruments we track
- Puerto RicoNot found in the instruments we track
- Rhode IslandNot found in the instruments we track
- South CarolinaNot found in the instruments we track
- South DakotaNot found in the instruments we track
- TennesseeNot found in the instruments we track
- TexasNot found in the instruments we track
- UtahNot found in the instruments we track
- VermontGuidance or policy only
Consumer-impacting insurer decisions must not be unfairly discriminatory under applicable regulatory standards.
- United States - Vermont - AI in Insurance (DFR Bulletin 229), Section 3: Regulatory Guidance and Expectations — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-06
- VirginiaNot found in the instruments we track
- WashingtonPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Health plans using AI for medical-necessity prior authorization must ensure it does not unlawfully discriminate.
- Washington AI in Insurance Prior Authorization Act, Sec. 2(3)(b)(iv) — Act, In Force
- United States - Washington - Responsible AI Policy, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-07
- West VirginiaNot found in the instruments we track
- WisconsinNot found in the instruments we track
- WyomingNot found in the instruments we track
Vietnam
Yes — binding law in forceTraining datasets must be representative and algorithmic biases must be mitigated.
- Vietnam AI Act 2025 — Act, In Force
- Vietnam - Responsible AI Development (1290/QD-BKHCN), Respect for Human Rights and Dignity — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
0 of 1 regions address this
- Ho Chi Minh CityNot found in the instruments we track
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law (1)
South Korea
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) lawThe notice requires pre-deployment testing that covers bias in AI models.
- South Korea - AI Impact Assessment, Compliance Checklist — Regulation, In Force
- South Korea - AI Industry Promotion (AIPTRXX/2022), Implementation Framework summary — Bill, Proposed
- South Korea - Automated Decision Rights Guide, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Adopted
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
0 of 1 regions address this
- SeoulNot found in the instruments we track
Proposed (5)
Chile
ProposedThe explanatory text says AI should not perpetuate inequalities or generate discriminatory algorithmic bias.
- Chile - AI Development Limits (17112-19), Antecedentes — Bill, Under Review
- Chile - AI Systems Regulation (Boletín 16821-19) — Bill, Under Review
- Chile - AI Use in Government (Oficio No. 711/2023), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- and 4 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
India
ProposedIt prohibits discrimination by AI in critical decisions and mandates audits and corrective withdrawal for significant bias.
- India AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Proposed
- India SEBI AI Responsibility Proposal for Securities Market, Compliance Checklist — Regulation, Proposed
- India - AI Governance Guidelines (2025), Part 1: Key Principles – 04 Fairness and Equity — Guideline, In Force
- and 2 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
2 of 4 regions address this
- KarnatakaGuidance or policy only
The compliance checklist directs AI developers and deployers to ensure fairness in AI systems.
- India - Karnataka - AI Mission Policy, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Adopted (from 2025-11-13)
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
- MaharashtraGuidance or policy only
Technology providers must design and train models to eliminate algorithmic bias and systemic errors.
- India - Maharashtra - AI in Agriculture (2025-29), Penalties, Liability, and Appeals — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- Tamil NaduNot found in the instruments we track
- TelanganaNot found in the instruments we track
Indonesia
ProposedDevelopers and deployers must conduct pre-deployment bias testing.
- Indonesia - National AI Regulation — Decree, Draft
- Indonesia - Draft AI Bill, Monitoring and Evaluation — Bill, Draft
- Indonesia - National AI Roadmap, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Draft
- and 2 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
Mexico
ProposedHigh-risk AI impact assessments must evaluate discrimination risks.
- Mexico - Federal AI Legislative Initiatives — Bill, Under Review
- Mexico - AI Strategy Development, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Adopted
- Mexico - AI Development Guidelines (2018), Monitoring and Evaluation — Guideline, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
Turkey
ProposedDatasets used in AI must avoid discriminatory sampling.
- Turkey - AI Law Amendments (Esas No. 2/3358), Compliance Checklist — Bill, Under Review
- Turkey - AI Regulation Bill (2/2234) — Bill, Under Review
- Turkey - AI in Education Policy — Policy, In Force
- and 4 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
Guidance or policy only (8)
Australia
Guidance or policy onlyThe listed requirements include ongoing testing for bias, reliability and unintended consequences.
- Australia - AI Policy Update, Mandatory requirements and implementation measures — Policy, In Force
- Australia - AI Ethics Framework (2019), Core principles for AI, 5. Fairness — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-11-07)
- Australia - AI Assurance Framework (2024), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- and 2 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
5 of 7 regions address this
- Australian Capital TerritoryGuidance or policy only
Directorates must use risk-management strategies that minimise unfair or discriminatory AI outcomes.
- Australia - Australian Capital Territory - AI Policy (2025), Definitions — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- New South WalesGuidance or policy only
Agencies must assess and mitigate AI risks, including bias magnification.
- Australia - New South Wales - AI Assurance Framework (2022), Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-17
- Northern TerritoryGuidance or policy only
Agencies must align AI design and operations with ethics principles including fairness.
- Australia - Northern Territory - AI Assurance Framework (2024), Sources and References — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- QueenslandGuidance or policy only
Agencies must apply an ethical framework addressing fairness, bias mitigation and non-discrimination.
- Australia - Queensland - AI Governance Policy (2024), Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- Australia - Queensland - AI Governance Policy (RAI-AU-QL-ARTINGO-2024), Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10
- TasmaniaNot found in the instruments we track
- VictoriaGuidance or policy only
Agencies must document AI technologies, including their potential for bias.
- Australia - Victoria - AI Recordkeeping Policy (RAI-AU-VI-AIATRXX-2024), Policy summary — Policy, In Force
- Australia - Victoria - Generative AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
- Western AustraliaNot found in the instruments we track
Canada
Guidance or policy onlyIt encourages engagement with diversity and inclusion specialists on bias and intersectionality.
- Canada - Algorithmic Impact Assessment (2019), Section 3.2, Engage Gender-based Analysis Plus experts — Policy, In Force (Amended)
- Canada - Accessible AI Standard (CAN-ASC-6.2:2025) — Standard, In Force
- Canada - Generative AI Guidance, FASTER principles — Guideline, In Force
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-07
2 of 4 regions address this
- AlbertaNot found in the instruments we track
- British ColumbiaGuidance or policy only
Biases in AI systems must be identified, assessed, and mitigated to support equitable outcomes.
- Canada - British Columbia - AI Responsible Use Principles, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Draft
Status verified 2026-09-10
- OntarioNot found in the instruments we track
- QuebecGuidance or policy only
AI input data must be accurate and free of biases that could create harms or reinforce discrimination.
- Canada - Quebec - Responsible AI Use Guidelines, Principe de la fiabilité et de la robustesse 3 — Guideline, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Japan
Guidance or policy onlyOrganizations should test for biased outcomes and adopt remediation strategies.
- Japan - AI Utilization Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-08-09)
- Japan - AI R&D Guidelines, Implementation Framework — Guideline, Draft
- Japan - Human-Centric AI Principles, Section 4.1(6) — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-10
Saudi Arabia
Guidance or policy onlyDevelopers are advised to identify and eliminate bias in data using processes such as sampling and data augmentation.
- Saudi Arabia - Deepfakes Guidelines, 5.4.1 — Guideline, Draft
- Saudi Arabia - Generative AI Guidelines, Monitoring and Evaluation — Guideline, In Force
- Saudi Arabia - AI Ethics Principles — Guideline, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10
Singapore
Guidance or policy onlyIt recommends testing and monitoring to detect AI biases, performance drift and safety issues.
- Singapore - Ethical AI Advisory Council — Guideline, In Force
- Singapore - Personal Data in AI Systems, 10.3 — Guideline, In Force
- Singapore - AI Model Risk Management, Section 6.3.14 — Guideline, In Force
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-07
Switzerland
Guidance or policy onlyInstitutions must account for historical bias and unrepresentative data in AI inputs.
- Switzerland - AI Governance Guidelines (08/2024), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
United Arab Emirates
Guidance or policy onlyIt requires pre-deployment testing for bias and continuous monitoring.
- United Arab Emirates - AI Adoption Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- United Arab Emirates - AI Ethics Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- United Arab Emirates - AI Ethics Self-Assessment Tool, Implementation Framework — Guideline, In Force
- and 2 more
1 of 2 regions address this
- Abu DhabiNot found in the instruments we track
- DubaiGuidance or policy only
Developers must test models for demographic bias and implement mitigation against discriminatory outcomes.
- United Arab Emirates - Dubai - AI Certification Framework, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- United Arab Emirates - Dubai - AI Regulatory Sandbox, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- United Arab Emirates - Dubai - Ethical AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
United Kingdom
Guidance or policy onlyUsers must check AI outputs for accuracy and credibility to prevent bias.
- DWP AI Security Policy for Government Use, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- United Kingdom - AI Playbook, Using AI safely and responsibly > Fairness, bias and discrim — Guideline, In Force (Amended)
- UK AI Assurance Guide, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- and 5 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
1 of 1 regions address this
- ScotlandPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Public bodies must assess ethical and societal impacts, including bias and discrimination.
- United Kingdom - Scotland - AI Register (2025), Compliance Checklist — Regulation, In Force
International organisations (1)
European Union
Yes — binding law in forceIt requires high-quality training datasets to reduce risks of discriminatory outcomes, especially for high-risk AI.
- EU AI Act Enforcement, Compliance Checklist — Regulation, In Force
- European Union - Digital Regulation Simplification (2025), Recital (31) — Bill, Under Review
- European Union - AI Act Implementation — Policy, In Force
- and 7 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-11
Not yet reviewed for this topic (65)
We track instruments for these jurisdictions but have not yet classified them for this topic. This is not a finding that they have no such rule.
Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan