Which countries require AI transparency?

Duties to tell people they are dealing with AI, to label AI-generated content, or to disclose AI use in a decision.

25 of 109 reviewed jurisdictions address this in at least one tracked instrument. Updated 2026-10-06.

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 (19)

Argentina
Yes — binding law in force
Officials must clearly disclose substantial use of generative AI in specified public-facing or decision-related content.
- Argentina - Santa Fe - AI Adoption Protocol (2726/2025), Anexo, Artículo 9° — Decree, In Force
- Argentina - Virtual Assistant Implementation (1486/2025), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- Argentina - Buenos Aires - AI Guidelines (4/2025), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- and 7 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
2 of 4 regions address this
- Buenos AiresGuidance or policy only
  Citizens must be clearly told when they interact with an AI-mediated system.
  - Argentina - Buenos Aires - Generative AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- JujuyNot found in the instruments we track
- Río NegroNot found in the instruments we track
- San JuanPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Litigants must be able to know whether AI was used in their case and understand its criteria.
  - Argentina - San Juan - AI Judicial Protocol (2024), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
Brazil
Yes — binding law in force
External users must receive clear, accessible and objective information about AI used in services provided to them.
- Brazil - AI Governance in Judiciary (615/2025), Art. 33 — Regulation, In Force
- Brazil - National AI Regulation (2.338/2023), Capítulo II, Seção I, § 2º — Bill, Under Review
- Brazil AI Regulatory Framework Bill, Art. 5º, I — Bill, Under Review
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
China
Yes — binding law in force
Providers must prominently tell users they are interacting with AI rather than a natural person.
- China - Anthropomorphic AI Services Regulation, 第十六条 — Regulation, In Force
- China AI Content Labeling Rules, Overview — Regulation, In Force
- China - Generative AI Services Management, 第十二条 — Regulation, In Force
- and 6 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
Finland
Yes — binding law in force
Public-sector deployers must tell citizens when they interact with AI in an administrative process.
- Finland AI Act Implementation Law, Implementation Framework — Act, In Force
- Finland - AI Regulation Implementation (HE 46/2025), Compliance Checklist FI-AI-REG-05 — Bill, In Force
- Finland - Human-Centric AI Programme, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Adopted
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
0 of 1 regions address this
- HelsinkiNot found in the instruments we track
Germany
Yes — binding law in force
Operators of certain high-risk systems must ensure affected persons receive the explanation required by the EU AI Act.
- Germany AI Act Implementation Law, § 15 Absatz 2 — Act, In Force
- Germany - National AI Strategy Update — Policy, Adopted
Status verified 2026-09-08
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
1 of 3 regions address this
- Baden-WürttembergNot found in the instruments we track
- BavariaNot found in the instruments we track
- North Rhine-WestphaliaGuidance or policy only
  The compliance checklist directs AI system operators to implement transparency measures.
  - Germany - North Rhine-Westphalia - AI Strategy 2.0, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
Greece
Yes — binding law in force
People affected by AI decisions must receive appropriate information and recourse pathways.
- Greece - Digital Governance Framework (4961/2022), Transparency obligations — Act, In Force
- Greece - National AI Strategy, Appendix I — Policy, Under Review
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Hungary
Yes — binding law in force
Providers and deployers must comply with EU AI Regulation transparency measures.
- Hungary - AI Regulation Implementation (344/2025) — Decree, In Force
- Hungary - EU AI Regulation Implementation (LXXV/2025) — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-10
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Italy
Yes — binding law in force
People receiving healthcare have a right to be informed when AI technologies are used.
- Italy - AI Regulation (n.132/2025), Art. 7, comma 3 — Act, In Force
- Italy - Temporary Order Against ChatGPT, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- Italy - AI Adoption Guidelines, §7.1 — Guideline, Draft
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
1 of 2 regions address this
- Emilia-RomagnaGuidance or policy only
  AI solutions supported by the Hub must comply with listed transparency-focused legal requirements.
  - Italy - Emilia-Romagna - AI Regional Hub — Policy, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- LombardyNot found in the instruments we track
Kazakhstan
Yes — binding law in force
Users must be told when goods, works or services are produced or provided using AI systems.
- Kazakhstan - AI Regulation (2025), Статья 21, пункт 1 — Act, In Force (Amended)
- Kazakhstan - AI Regulatory Amendments (232-VIII), Article 641-1 — Act, In Force
- Kazakhstan Digital Code, Compliance Checklist — 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
Latvia
Yes — binding law in force
Paid AI-generated campaign content depicting persons or fabricated events must be clearly labelled.
- Latvia - AI Use in Campaigning (2024), Article 3¹ — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Lithuania
Yes — binding law in force
Providers must give users information on AI system capabilities, limitations and safe use.
- Lithuania - AI Act Implementation (XV-106), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
- Lithuania - AI Development Amendments (XV-105), (134) — Act, In Force
- Lithuania - National AI Strategy Update — Policy, Adopted (from 2026-01-01)
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Malta
Yes — binding law in force
Operators must give required user notices and disclosures for certain AI outputs, including synthetic content labels.
- Malta - AI Regulations (226/2025), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- Malta - Ethical AI Framework, Compliance Checklist — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-10-03)
Status verified 2026-09-08
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Peru
Yes — binding law in force
Developers or implementers of high-risk AI must inform users beforehand about its purpose, functions and possible decisions.
- Peru - AI Regulation Implementation (115-2025), Artículo 25.1 — Decree, In Force
- Peru - AI Digital Labeling Bill (6524/2023), Artículo 4.4 — Bill, Proposed
- Peru - AI Regulation Bill (07033/2023), Artículo 7: Transparencia — Bill, Under Review
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
Philippines
Yes — binding law in force
Campaign materials using AI must carry clear disclosures, including that content was manipulated using AI.
- Philippines - AI Campaign Content Prohibition (11064/2024), Article IV, Section 2 — Regulation, In Force
- Philippines - AI Development Regulation (HB 7396), Key Focus Areas — Ethical AI Principles and Implementation — Bill, Under Review
- Philippines - AI Regulation for Elections (HB 10567) — Bill, Under Review
- and 2 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Singapore
Yes — binding law in force
Court users must be prepared to identify AI-used portions and explain verification when the Court asks.
- Singapore - Generative AI Use in Courts (Registrar's Circular No. 1/2024), Operationally — Regulation, In Force
- Singapore - Ethical AI Advisory Council — Guideline, In Force
- Singapore - Personal Data in AI Systems, 10.3 — Guideline, In Force
- and 4 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
Slovakia
Yes — binding law in force
The Act requires clear labelling where AI is used, including for chatbots, and understandable AI outputs.
- Slovakia AI Conformity Assessment Act, Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
- Slovakia - AI Governance Bill (LP/2025/401), Penalties, Liability, and Appeals — Bill, Under Review
- Slovakia - AI State Administration Act (RAI-SK-NA-DOSAFXX-2025), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Under Review
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
South Korea
Yes — binding law in force
Providers using high-impact or generative AI must notify users in advance that AI is being used.
- South Korea AI Trust Framework Act, Compliance Checklist — Act, In Force
- South Korea - AI Impact Assessment, Compliance Checklist — Regulation, In Force
- South Korea - AI Industry Promotion (AIPTRXX/2022), Implementation Timeline / Compliance Checklist — Bill, Proposed
- and 6 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10
0 of 1 regions address this
- SeoulNot found in the instruments we track
United States
Yes — binding law in force
AI voice messages must provide identification information, and telemarketing messages must provide opt-out methods.
- FCC Rules AI Voice Calls Illegal Under TCPA, III. DISCUSSION, para. 9 — Regulation, In Force
- CMS 2024 Medicare Advantage Policy and AI Guidance, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- US National AI Policy Framework Executive Order, Sources and References — Decree, In Force
- and 9 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
34 of 51 states address this
- AlabamaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  AI-generated or manipulated election media must carry prominent visual or audible disclaimers.
  - United States - Alabama - Deepfake Regulation (HB 172), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  - Alabama AI Health Coverage Act, Section 1(c)(1) — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2026-10-01)
  Status verified 2026-09-17
- AlaskaNot found in the instruments we track
- ArizonaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Covered synthetic media messages must clearly and conspicuously disclose that they include AI-generated content.
  - United States - Arizona - Deepfake Prohibition (SB 1359), A — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- ArkansasNot found in the instruments we track
- CaliforniaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Frontier developers must publish transparency reports before or when deploying new or substantially modified frontier models.
  - United States - California - AI Transparency Act (SB 53), Section 22757.12(c)(1) — Act, In Force
  - United States - California - AI Disclosure in Political Ads (AB 2355), Section 84514(a)(1) — Act, In Force
  - United States - California - Combat Deepfakes (AB 2655), Section 20514(c) — Act, In Force
  - and 7 more
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-10
- ColoradoPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Consumers must be notified when high-risk AI makes a consequential decision about them.
  - Colorado AI Act Delay — Act, In Force
  - United States - Colorado - Synthetic Media Disclosure (HB 24-1147), Disclosure Requirements for Synthetic Media — Act, In Force
  - United States - Colorado - AI in Insurance (SB 21-169), Colorado Insurance Regulation 10-1-1 — Act, In Force (Amended)
  - and 3 more
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- ConnecticutPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Operators must notify users clearly that they are communicating with an AI companion.
  - Connecticut AI Responsibility and Transparency Act, Compliance Checklist — Act, In Force
  - United States - Connecticut - AI Impact Assessment (Public Act 23-16), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  - Connecticut Comprehensive AI Act — Bill, Adopted
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- DelawarePartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Synthetic media must carry a clear disclosure to qualify for the exemption from criminal liability.
  - United States - Delaware - Deepfakes Regulation (HB 316) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- FloridaNot found in the instruments we track
- GeorgiaAdopted — not yet in force
  Operators must clearly tell users they are interacting with an AI chatbot rather than a person.
  - Georgia AI Chatbot Safety Act — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-07-01)
  - United States - Georgia - AI Governance Guidelines (2024), Implementation Framework — Guideline, In Force (Amended)
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- HawaiiPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Operators must clearly notify users when a conversational AI service could be mistaken for a human.
  - Hawaii AI Disclosure Safety Act, §481B-__, subsection (a) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- IdahoPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Synthetic media published in electioneering communications must carry a clear and conspicuous manipulation disclosure.
  - United States - Idaho - Deepfakes Regulation (HB 664) — Act, In Force
  - Idaho Conversational AI Safety Act, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-07-01)
  Status verified 2026-09-07
- IllinoisPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Clients must give explicit written consent before AI is used in therapy.
  - Illinois AI in Therapy Act — Act, In Force
  - United States - Illinois - AI Video Interview Regulation (2019) — Act, In Force
  - United States - Illinois - AI Employment Regulation (HB 3773), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  - and 1 more
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- IndianaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Insurers must clearly disclose AI use in adverse prior-authorization decisions and claim downcoding.
  - Indiana AI Health Claims Law — Act, In Force
  - United States - Indiana - Deepfake Regulation (HB 1133) — Act, In Force
  - United States - Indiana - Media Alteration Disclosure (Public Law 81/2024), Existing Statutes and Recent Legislation table (2024 Indiana — Act, In Force
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- IowaNot found in the instruments we track
- KansasNot found in the instruments we track
- KentuckyNot found in the instruments we track
- LouisianaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Licensed healthcare professionals must verbally tell patients before AI-assisted recording for transcription.
  - Louisiana AI Medical Transcription Disclosure, R.S. 37:22.1 — Act, In Force
  - Louisiana AI Political Call Disclosure, R.S. 18:1463.1 — Act, In Force
  - Louisiana AI Campaign Disclosure Act, R.S. 18:1463(H) — Bill, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- MainePartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Businesses and individuals must clearly disclose conversational AI that may be mistaken for a human in commerce.
  - United States - Maine - AI Transparency Act, Title 10, §1500-DD — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- MarylandNot found in the instruments we track
- MassachusettsNot found in the instruments we track
- MichiganPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  AI-generated or manipulated media must carry a clear and conspicuous disclosure to fall within the statutory exception.
  - United States - Michigan - Deceptive Media Prohibition (HB 5144), Michigan Election Law §168.932f — Act, In Force
  - United States - Michigan - AI in Elections (HB 5141-5145), Key Focus Areas—Disclosure Requirements for AI-Generated Pol — Act, In Force
  - United States - Michigan - AI in Political Advertising (PA 263-266), House Bill 5141 (Public Act 263 of 2023) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-07
- MinnesotaNot found in the instruments we track
- MississippiNot found in the instruments we track
- MissouriPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Where AI is used in administrative or supplementary mental-health roles, users must be clearly told its AI status.
  - Missouri AI Therapy Chatbot Ban, Compliance Checklist — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-11
- MontanaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Deepfake election communications must carry a clear and conspicuous disclosure to qualify for the exception.
  - United States - Montana - Deepfakes Regulation (SB 25), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- NebraskaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Utilization review agents must disclose their use of AI-based algorithms to regulators, providers, enrollees, and the public.
  - Nebraska Prior Authorization Transparency Act — Act, In Force
  - Nebraska Conversational AI Safety Act — Act, Awaiting Entry
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- NevadaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Covered political communications using synthetic media must carry a conspicuous manipulation disclosure.
  - United States - Nevada - Deepfakes Regulation (AB 73) — Act, In Force
- New HampshirePartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  News reporting on deepfakes must acknowledge questionable authenticity to qualify for the exemption.
  - United States - New Hampshire - Deepfake Regulation (HB 1432) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- New JerseyNot found in the instruments we track
- New MexicoNot found in the instruments we track
- New YorkPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Employers must notify affected candidates and employees before AEDT use and publicly disclose audit results.
  - United States - New York - Employment Decision Tools (LL144), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
  - United States - New York - Deepfakes Regulation (Chapter 56/2024), Election Law § 14-107-a — Act, In Force
  - New York Stop Deepfakes Act, Bill summary — Bill, Adopted
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- North CarolinaGuidance or policy only
  Agencies must give accessible notice to people potentially affected by AI use.
  - United States - North Carolina - Responsible AI Framework, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-17
- North DakotaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  AI-created or substantially altered political communications must include a clear disclosure statement.
  - United States - North Dakota - AI Disclosure in Politics (HB 1167) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- OhioProposed
  AI-generated products must carry a distinctive watermark identifying their AI origin.
  - United States - Ohio - AI Watermark Requirements (SB 217), Compliance Checklist — Bill, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- OklahomaNot found in the instruments we track
- OregonPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Campaign communications using synthetic media must include clear and conspicuous disclosures.
  - United States - Oregon - Synthetic Media Disclosure (SB 1571), ORS Chapter 260 — Act, In Force
  - United States - Oregon - AI in Campaigns (SB 1571), SECTION 1(2) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- PennsylvaniaNot found in the instruments we track
- Puerto RicoProposed
  Agencies must assess AI systems for compliance with transparency requirements every two years.
  - United States - Puerto Rico - AI Regulation (SB 68), Monitoring and Evaluation — Bill, Proposed
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- Rhode IslandPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  AI-generated or manipulated synthetic media must carry a clear and conspicuous disclosure to qualify for the exception.
  - United States - Rhode Island - Deceptive Media in Elections (S816), Chapter 17-30 — Act, In Force
  - United States - Rhode Island - Deepfakes Regulation (HB 5872), Title 17, Chapter 30 — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- South CarolinaProposed
  Visual and audio synthetic media using the disclosure exception must carry a specified AI-manipulation disclosure.
  - United States - South Carolina - Deepfake Media Regulation (HB 3517), Section 7-25-230(C)(1) — Bill, Under Review
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- South DakotaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Deepfakes within scope must display or audibly provide prescribed disclosure language.
  - United States - South Dakota - Deepfake Regulation (HB 1074), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- TennesseePartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Deepfake political advertisements must carry clear disclosure statements tailored to audio or video.
  - Tennessee Deepfake Political Ads Law, Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- TexasNot found in the instruments we track
- UtahAdopted — not yet in force
  Covered providers must include latent provenance disclosures in specified AI-generated or substantially modified content.
  - Utah Deepfake Ban and AI Provenance Act, Section 13-72c-203 — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-01-01)
  Status verified 2026-09-07
- VermontGuidance or policy only
  AIS programmes should notify affected consumers that AI systems are used and provide appropriate information.
  - United States - Vermont - AI in Insurance (DFR Bulletin 229), Section 3, AIS Program Guidelines, 1.9 — Guideline, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-06
- VirginiaProposed
  Operators must prevent chatbots from falsely presenting themselves as human beings.
  - Virginia AI Chatbot Minor Protection Act, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Under Review
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- WashingtonPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Political communications using synthetic media must clearly disclose that the media was manipulated.
  - United States - Washington - Deepfakes Regulation (SB 5152), Compliance Checklist — Act, In Force
  - Washington AI Content Transparency Act, Sec. 4(2) — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-02-01)
  - Washington AI Companion Chatbot Act, Sec. 3(1) — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-01-01)
  - and 2 more
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- West VirginiaNot found in the instruments we track
- WisconsinPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Covered political audio and video using synthetic media must display or state prescribed AI-generated-content notices.
  - United States - Wisconsin - Deepfakes Regulation (Act 123), s. 11.1303 (2m) (b) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- WyomingNot found in the instruments we track
Vietnam
Yes — binding law in force
Users must be told when they are directly interacting with an AI system.
- Vietnam AI Act 2025 — Act, 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 (5)

Canada
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Employers using AI to screen, assess or select applicants must disclose its use in public job postings.
- Canada - AI and Monitoring Provisions (Bill 149), Schedule 2, s. 8.4(1) — Act, In Force
- Canada - Algorithmic Impact Assessment (2019), Section 3.3 — Policy, In Force (Amended)
- Canada - Generative AI Guidance, FASTER principles — Guideline, In Force
- and 4 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
3 of 4 regions address this
- AlbertaNot found in the instruments we track
- British ColumbiaGuidance or policy only
  Users must provide clear information about an AI system’s purpose, benefits, and operation.
  - Canada - British Columbia - AI Responsible Use Principles, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Draft
  Status verified 2026-09-10
- OntarioPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Public sector entities must provide the public information about their use of AI.
  - Canada - Ontario - AI Governance Act (Bill 194), Key Focus Areas — AI System Requirements — Act, In Force
  - Canada - Ontario - AI Hiring Disclosure (2024), Schedule 2, section 8.4(1) — Act, Awaiting Entry
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- QuebecPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Organizations must inform people when their personal information is used for automated decision-making.
  - Canada - Quebec - Personal Information Protection (Law 25), Implementation Timeline — Transparency for Automated Decisio — Act, In Force (Amended)
  - Canada - Quebec - Responsible AI Use Guidelines, Principe de la transparence 7 — Guideline, In Force
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-09
France
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Administrations must notify affected persons of algorithmic decision-making and provide intelligible information about the processing on request.
- France - Algorithmic Decision Rights (2017-330), Articles R.311-3-1-1 and R.311-3-1-2 CRPA — Decree, In Force
- France - Digital Republic Law (2016-1321) — Act, In Force (Amended)
- France - Biometric Recognition Bill (n°505), Article 5, III — Bill, Under Review
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Indonesia
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
The text states obligations concerning transparency about automated processing.
- Indonesia - Electronic Transactions Law (1/2024) — Act, In Force
- Indonesia - National AI Regulation, Key Focus Areas — Decree, Draft
- Indonesia - AI Governance for Banking, Key Focus Areas — Transparency and explainability — Guideline, In Force
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
Spain
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Participating AI systems must be designed so their operation is sufficiently transparent to users.
- Spain - National AI Sandbox (Royal Decree 817/2023), Artículo 11.e — Decree, In Force
- Spain AI Governance Bill, Sistemas de alto riesgo — Bill, Under Review
- Spain - Basque Country - AI Strategy — Policy, In Force
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
2 of 3 regions address this
- AsturiasPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  AI systems must inform people that they communicate or interact with an AI system.
  - Spain - Asturias - AI Public Administration Decree (2025), artículo 3.g — Decree, In Force
  - Spain - Asturias - AI Regulation (98/2025) — Decree, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- CataloniaNot found in the instruments we track
- GaliciaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Public-sector AI must be understandable to administrators and citizens, including its operation and outcomes.
  - Spain - Galicia - AI Regulation (2/2025), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  - Spain - Galicia - AI Development Law (2/2025), Artículo 23.1.a.1.º — Act, In Force (Amended)
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
United Kingdom
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Automated decisions using non-sensitive personal data require notice to affected individuals.
- United Kingdom - Data Access Reform (2025) — Act, In Force
- UK Automated Software Transparency Bill — Bill, Proposed
- UK AI Assurance Guide, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- and 6 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
0 of 1 regions address this
- ScotlandNot found in the instruments we track

Proposed (20)

Chile
Proposed
Operators face transparency obligations including user notices and labeling where outputs affect individuals.
- Chile - AI and Robotics Regulation (Boletín 15869-19) — Bill, Under Review
- Chile - AI Development Limits (17112-19), Artículo 4 — Bill, Under Review
- Chile - AI Systems Regulation (Boletín 16821-19) — Bill, Under Review
- and 6 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-08
Colombia
Proposed
Providers must disclose system capabilities, limitations and data provenance, and label synthetic content.
- Colombia - Ethical AI Law Proposal (PL 005/2024C), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Stalled
- Colombia - AI Regulation (154/2024), Artículo 9 — Bill, Under Review
- Colombia - AI Regulation Bill (C200/2023) — Bill, Stalled
- and 3 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10
Costa Rica
Proposed
AI operators must disclose AI use and capabilities to affected individuals.
- Costa Rica - AI Regulation Bill, Transparency Requirements — Bill, Under Review
- Costa Rica AI Regulation Bill, ARTÍCULO 4(c) — Bill, Under Review
Status verified 2026-09-09
Croatia
Proposed
Providers must provide user information, warnings, and disclosures of synthetic content.
- Croatia - AI Act Transposition Process (2025) — Bill, Draft
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Ecuador
Proposed
Deployers and public-sector users must provide transparency and explainability for automated decisions.
- Ecuador - AI Regulation and Promotion (2024) — Bill, Under Review
Status verified 2026-09-09
Egypt
Proposed
The draft describes mandates for transparency and explainability to people affected by AI systems.
- Egypt - AI Governance Law (2024), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Draft
Status verified 2026-09-08
India
Proposed
Developers must disclose AI systems' purposes, limits, training data sources, methods, and decision reasoning to affected people.
- India AI Ethics and Accountability Bill, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Proposed
- India - AI Governance Guidelines (2025), Part 1, Understandable by Design — Guideline, In Force
- India - Responsible AI Summit — Policy, Adopted (from 2020-10-05)
Status verified 2026-09-09
0 of 4 regions address this
- KarnatakaNot found in the instruments we track
- MaharashtraNot found in the instruments we track
- Tamil NaduNot found in the instruments we track
- TelanganaNot found in the instruments we track
Luxembourg
Proposed
It requires transparency duties, including labelling human and AI interactions.
- Luxembourg - AI Act Implementation (Bill No. 8476) — Act, Under Review
- Luxembourg - AI in Schools Guidelines, Implementation requirements — Policy, Draft
Status verified 2026-09-10
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Mexico
Proposed
Entities must notify people of AI decisions affecting them and provide explanation and contestation channels.
- Mexico - Federal AI Legislative Initiatives — Bill, Under Review
- Mexico - Criminal Code Reform on AI (2025) — Bill, Under Review
- Mexico - Protect Dubbing Actors (2025) — Bill, Proposed
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
Morocco
Proposed
Entities must provide transparency about automated decisions affecting individuals.
- Morocco - National AI Governance Bill (2024), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Proposed
Status verified 2026-09-07
0 of 1 regions address this
- Casablanca-SettatNot found in the instruments we track
Netherlands
Proposed
It requires disclosure when people interact with AI or view AI-generated content.
- Netherlands AI Act Implementation Draft, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Proposed
- Netherlands - AI Oversight Guidelines, 3.1 Rechtmatigheid, behoorlijkheid en transparantie — Guideline, In Force
- Netherlands - AI and Human Rights (2019), staged approach / government use of AI — Policy, Adopted
- and 8 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-08
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
0 of 1 regions address this
- AmsterdamNot found in the instruments we track
Nigeria
Proposed
Operators must maintain model documentation and provide user-facing warnings for synthetic content and automated decisions.
- Nigeria - AI Technology Control (HB 942) — Bill, Under Review
- Nigeria - AI Code of Practice (2025), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, Draft
- Nigeria - National AI Policy — Policy, Draft
- and 2 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
Norway
Proposed
Limited-risk systems must inform users when they interact with AI and disclose purpose and limitations.
- Norway - AI Regulation (2026), Compliance Checklist — Bill, Draft
- Norway - AI Regulatory Sandbox, Participation requirements (unnumbered) — Guideline, In Force
- Norway - National AI Strategy — Policy, Adopted (from 2020-01-14)
Status verified 2026-09-10
Panama
Proposed
It describes transparency requirements making AI systems understandable and their decisions explainable.
- Panama - AI Regulation (Bill No. 14), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Under Review
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Poland
Proposed
Affected persons must receive transparency and disclosure about AI system use.
- Poland - AI Systems Regulation (DAISPXX/2024) — Bill, Draft
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Romania
Proposed
Providers must inform users and people affected by AI outputs, including through content labelling.
- Romania - AI Legal Framework (B154/2024), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Under Review
- Romania - Responsible Technology Use (PL-x 471/2023) — Bill, Under Review
- Romania - National AI Strategy, CAPITOLUL 2, secțiunea 2.3 — Policy, Adopted
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Thailand
Proposed
It mandates disclosures to end-users and affected people about synthetic content and automated decisions.
- Thailand - AI Business Operations (2022), Key Focus Areas — Decree, Draft
- Thailand - AI Ethics Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Adopted
- Thailand - AI Risk Management Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Draft
- and 2 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-08
Turkey
Proposed
Providers must clearly and persistently label AI-generated content.
- Turkey - AI Law Amendments (Esas No. 2/3358), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Under Review
- Turkey - AI in Education Policy, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
- Turkey - Deepfake Information Note, Implementation Framework — Transparency and notice — Guideline, In Force
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
Ukraine
Proposed
It mandates understandable disclosure of AI presence, capabilities, and decision-making processes.
- Ukraine - AI and Human Rights, Key Focus Areas — Transparency and Explainability — Regulation, Proposed
- Ukraine - Responsible AI in Advertising, Key Focus Areas — Transparency and Disclosure — Guideline, In Force
- Ukraine - Responsible AI Use in Media, Definitions — Transparency and Clarity — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
Uzbekistan
Proposed
Uploaders must label all information resources created using AI.
- Uzbekistan - AI Regulation (2025) — Bill, Proposed
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10

Guidance or policy only (27)

Australia
Guidance or policy only
Covered Commonwealth entities must publish public, plain-language statements disclosing their AI use, purposes and safeguards.
- Australia - AI Transparency Standard (RAI-AU-NA-AITRSTX-2024), Implementation Framework — Standard, In Force
- Australia - AI Governance Standard, Definitions — Standard, In Force
- Australia - AI Policy Update, Practical impact — Policy, In Force
- and 6 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
3 of 7 regions address this
- Australian Capital TerritoryGuidance or policy only
  It calls for transparency and disclosure so people understand when they interact with AI and its impacts.
  - Australia - Australian Capital Territory - AI Policy (2025), Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- New South WalesNot found in the instruments we track
- Northern TerritoryNot found in the instruments we track
- QueenslandGuidance or policy only
  Agencies must be open about their AI use, including algorithms used to inform government decisions.
  - Australia - Queensland - AI Governance Policy (RAI-AU-QL-ARTINGO-2024), Transparency and Accountability — Policy, In Force
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- TasmaniaNot found in the instruments we track
- VictoriaGuidance or policy only
  Public offices must disclose AI interactions and significant AI impacts to affected individuals.
  - Australia - Victoria - AI Recordkeeping Policy (RAI-AU-VI-AIATRXX-2024), Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- Western AustraliaNot found in the instruments we track
Austria
Guidance or policy only
Providers and platforms are instructed to use user-facing labels or notifications indicating AI involvement.
- Austria - AI Measures Package, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Belgium
Guidance or policy only
It encourages public administrations to adopt transparency measures for public-facing AI.
- Belgium - National AI Coalition, Implementation Framework — Policy, Adopted (from 2019-03-01)
- Belgium - AI for Common Good — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Cyprus
Guidance or policy only
It requires user-facing disclosures for high-risk and GPAI systems.
- Cyprus - AI Regulation Implementation (2024/1689), Key Focus Areas (4) — Policy, Adopted (from 2024-11-06)
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Denmark
Guidance or policy only
The cited non-binding AI ethics guidelines describe transparency as informing people they interact with an AI system.
- Denmark - AI Regulation Supplement (Law No. 467/2025), Recital (27) — Act, In Force
- Denmark - National AI Taskforce, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
- Denmark - AI Regulatory Sandbox — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Estonia
Guidance or policy only
It recommends transparency for public bodies' automated processes and contestable AI-assisted decisions.
- Estonia - AI Expert Group Report (2019), Compliance Checklist — Policy, Adopted
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Ghana
Guidance or policy only
Organizations must implement disclosure and transparency mechanisms for AI systems.
- Ghana - Ethical AI Readiness Assessment (RAI-GH-NA-RAMREXX-2024), Implementation Framework — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-06
Hong Kong
Guidance or policy only
It recommends tamper-proof identifiers for high-risk generative outputs such as deepfakes.
- Hong Kong - AI Development Guidelines (2025), Implementation Framework — Guideline, In Force
- Hong Kong - Ethical AI Framework, Section 4.1.5.2 — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
Iceland
Guidance or policy only
The compliance checklist requires AI systems to provide appropriate transparency to users.
- Iceland AI Action Plan, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
Ireland
Guidance or policy only
It states that AI must be developed and used with transparency and accountability.
- Ireland - National AI Strategy, Section 1.1, “Introduction” — Policy, Adopted (from 2021-07-08)
- Ireland - Responsible AI Use Guidelines, Chapter 8, Recommendations for GenAI End-Users — Guideline, In Force
- Ireland - AI Act Implementation Roadmap, Compliance Checklist, IE-GPAI-1 — Policy, Adopted
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Israel
Guidance or policy only
It recommends meaningful notice when people interact with AI and documentation of system capabilities and limitations.
- Israel - AI Regulation and Ethics, Key Focus Areas — Policy, Adopted (from 2023-12-14)
- Israel - Algorithmic Processing Guidance, Overview — Guideline, In Force
- Israel - AI Policy Principles, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Draft
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
Japan
Guidance or policy only
Organizations should make disclosures about AI use meaningful, proportionate to risk, and audience-adapted.
- Japan - AI Utilization Guidelines, Key Focus Areas (8) — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-08-09)
- Japan - Human-Centric AI Principles, 4.1(6) The Principle of Fairness, Accountability, and Transp — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-10
Kenya
Guidance or policy only
The Code recommends transparency measures, including model cards or summaries for stakeholders and end users.
- Kenya - AI Code of Practice (DKS 3007:2024), Compliance Checklist — Standard, Adopted (from 2024-09-30)
- Kenya - Media Reporting Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Adopted
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
Lebanon
Guidance or policy only
The checklist calls for transparency in AI decisions, particularly in public-facing or critical applications.
- Lebanon - AI Initiative, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
Malaysia
Guidance or policy only
Operators must provide transparency notices to affected people for automated decisions.
- Malaysia National AI Action Plan 2030 — Policy, In Force
- Malaysia - National AI Roadmap, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
- Malaysia - National AI Coordination, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-08
New Zealand
Guidance or policy only
It recommends publishing plain-language statements about AI use, data practices and redress.
- New Zealand - AI Privacy Guidance, Implementation Framework — Guideline, In Force
- New Zealand - Algorithm Use Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- New Zealand - AI Strategy (2025), Governance and Institutional Framework — Policy, Adopted (from 2025-07-08)
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-06
Pakistan
Guidance or policy only
It mandates disclosure of public-sector automated decision-making and public-facing AI systems.
- Pakistan - National AI Policy (2025) — Policy, Adopted (from 2025-07-30)
Status verified 2026-09-09
Portugal
Guidance or policy only
It calls for explainable algorithms that provide understandable explanations of decisions.
- Portugal - Digital Human Rights (27/2021), THE USE OF TECHNOLOGIES AS A WAY OF DISCRIMINATION — Act, In Force (Amended)
- Portugal - Ethical AI in Public Administration, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Qatar
Guidance or policy only
It recommends explainability measures, including disclosures to users and model cards.
- Qatar - AI Security Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- Qatar - AI Guidelines for Banks, Operational requirements — Guideline, In Force
1 of 1 regions address this
- DohaGuidance or policy only
  Firms must notify customers of AI interactions and explain AI-driven decisions directly affecting them.
  - Qatar - AI Guidelines for Finance (2024), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
Russia
Guidance or policy only
It encourages informing users when they interact with AI in rights-affecting or critical life areas.
- Russia - AI Ethics Guidelines (2021), Section I, 2.5 — Guideline, Adopted (from 2021-10-26)
Status verified 2026-09-09
0 of 2 regions address this
- MoscowNot found in the instruments we track
- TatarstanNot found in the instruments we track
Saudi Arabia
Guidance or policy only
It recommends model factsheets and notices for users.
- Saudi Arabia - AI Adoption Framework, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- Saudi Arabia - Deepfakes Guidelines, 6.3.3 — Guideline, Draft
- Saudi Arabia - Generative AI Guidelines, Core elements — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Senegal
Guidance or policy only
AI system operators are instructed to implement disclosure mechanisms.
- Senegal - National AI Development Strategy, Transparency — Policy, Adopted (from 2023-09-01)
Status verified 2026-09-09
Serbia
Guidance or policy only
Users must be told when they are interacting with an AI system and may request a human.
- Serbia - Ethical AI Guidelines, 4.4.2 Recommendations – Communication — Guideline, Adopted (from 2023-03-23)
Status verified 2026-09-09
Sweden
Guidance or policy only
It recommends transparent documentation for high-impact AI used in public services.
- Sweden - AI Ecosystem Roadmap (SOU 2025:12), Recommendations — Policy, Under Review
Status verified 2026-09-10
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Switzerland
Guidance or policy only
Staff should disclose use of AI tools and document reliance on AI-generated content where appropriate.
- Switzerland - Generative AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- Switzerland - AI Guidelines, Anhang 2 II – Informationspflicht bei einer automatisierten — Guideline, Adopted (from 2020-11-25)
Status verified 2026-09-09
Taiwan
Guidance or policy only
Transparency and explainability are principles advocating disclosure and labelling of AI outputs.
- Taiwan AI Basic Act — Act, In Force
- Taiwan - Smart City AI Initiative, Implementation Framework — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
1 of 1 regions address this
- KaohsiungGuidance or policy only
  High-risk AI products or systems must carry clear notices or warnings.
  - Taiwan - Kaohsiung - Smart Lighthouse AI Program, Penalties, Liability, and Appeals — Policy, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
United Arab Emirates
Guidance or policy only
It recommends user notices and decision summaries for AI-informed decisions.
- United Arab Emirates - AI Ethics Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- UAE AI Development and Use Charter, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- United Arab Emirates - Deepfake Awareness Guide — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-07
1 of 2 regions address this
- Abu DhabiNot found in the instruments we track
- DubaiGuidance or policy only
  AI-system decisions must be understandable and auditable by non-technical stakeholders.
  - United Arab Emirates - Dubai - AI Certification Framework, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
  - United Arab Emirates - Dubai - Ethical AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09

Not found in the instruments we track (14)

Bahrain
Not found in the instruments we track
Bangladesh
Not found in the instruments we track
Bulgaria
Not found in the instruments we track
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Côte d'Ivoire
Not found in the instruments we track
Czech Republic
Not found in the instruments we track
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
Ethiopia
Not found in the instruments we track
Iran
Not found in the instruments we track
Iraq
Not found in the instruments we track
Maldives
Not found in the instruments we track
Rwanda
Not found in the instruments we track
Slovenia
Not found in the instruments we track
As an EU member state, the EU AI Act also applies here.
South Africa
Not found in the instruments we track
Tunisia
Not found in the instruments we track
Uruguay
Not found in the instruments we track

International organisations (24)

African Union
Not found in the instruments we track
APEC
Not found in the instruments we track
ASEAN
Guidance or policy only
Organizations are advised to make AI systems transparent, explainable and understandable to stakeholders.
- ASEAN AI Governance Guide, Compliance Checklist — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-07
BRICS
Not found in the instruments we track
Council of Europe
Not found in the instruments we track
European Union
Yes — binding law in force
Providers of pre-existing synthetic-content AI systems must take steps to comply with the referenced transparency rule.
- Digital Omnibus on AI, Article 111(4) amendment — Regulation, In Force
- EU AI Act, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force (Amended)
- EU AI Act Enforcement, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- and 9 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-11
G7
Guidance or policy only
It encourages platforms to clearly label AI-generated content.
- G7 Hiroshima AI Process, Content Authentication, Watermarking, and Disinformation — Policy, Adopted (from 2023-12-01)
Status verified 2026-09-09
GPAI
Not found in the instruments we track
IAEA
Not found in the instruments we track
ICAO
Not found in the instruments we track
IEEE
Guidance or policy only
Users must be clearly informed when they are interacting with an autonomous system.
- IEEE Autonomous Systems Transparency Standard, Key Provisions — Standard, In Force
- IEEE Transparency of Autonomous Systems Standard, Key Provisions — Standard, In Force
- IEEE CertifAIEd Ethics Certification Program, Key Focus Areas — Standard, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
ILO
Guidance or policy only
Workers must be informed when interacting with AI or when algorithms monitor their performance.
- ILO Work for a Brighter Future Report, Key Provisions — Policy, Adopted (from 2019-01-22)
Status verified 2026-09-09
International
Not found in the instruments we track
Interpol
Not found in the instruments we track
ISO
Guidance or policy only
It directs organizations to disclose context-level transparency information about AI systems.
- ISO AI Transparency Taxonomy — Standard, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
ITU
Not found in the instruments we track
NATO
Not found in the instruments we track
OAS
Not found in the instruments we track
OECD
Guidance or policy only
AI actors should provide information making stakeholders aware when they interact with AI systems.
- OECD AI Principles, Section 1, 1.3. Transparency and explainability — Guideline, In Force (Amended)
- OECD AI Principles, Section 1, 1.3 — Guideline, In Force (Amended)
Status verified 2026-09-09
UNESCO
Guidance or policy only
People must be informed when interacting with AI and affected people must be able to understand AI decision logic.
- UNESCO AI Ethics Recommendation, Key Provisions and Principles — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
United Nations
Guidance or policy only
It requires informing individuals when they interact with or are directly affected by AI.
- UN Ethical AI Principles for the UN System, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Adopted (from 2022-09-01)
Status verified 2026-09-07
WHO
Not found in the instruments we track
World Bank
Not found in the instruments we track
World Economic Forum
Not found in the instruments we track

Which countries require AI transparency?

Yes — binding law in force (19)

Argentina

Brazil

China

Finland

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Italy

Kazakhstan

Latvia

Lithuania

Malta

Peru

Philippines

Singapore

Slovakia

South Korea

United States

Vietnam

Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law (5)

Canada

France

Indonesia

Spain

United Kingdom

Proposed (20)

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Croatia

Ecuador

Egypt

India

Luxembourg

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

Nigeria

Norway

Panama

Poland

Romania

Thailand

Turkey

Ukraine

Uzbekistan

Guidance or policy only (27)

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Ghana

Hong Kong

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Japan

Kenya

Lebanon

Malaysia

New Zealand

Pakistan

Portugal

Qatar

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Serbia

Sweden

Switzerland

Taiwan

United Arab Emirates

Not found in the instruments we track (14)

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Bulgaria