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.

12 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 (9)

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 — Transparency and documentation — Regulation, In Force
- and 8 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
3 of 4 regions address this
- Buenos AiresGuidance or policy only
  Citizens must be clearly informed when interacting with an AI-mediated system.
  - Argentina - Buenos Aires - Generative AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- JujuyGuidance or policy only
  AI use must be clearly communicated, and its outputs must be understandable and open to challenge.
  - Argentina - Jujuy - AI Use Protocol (Acordada N° 31/2025), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-07
- Río NegroNot found in the instruments we track
- San JuanPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Litigants are entitled to know AI was used in their case and understand the algorithmic 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 - National AI Strategy (Portaria MCTI No. 4.617), Implementation-related strategic actions — Policy, In Force (Amended)
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Canada
Yes — binding law in force
Employers using AI to screen, assess or select applicants must disclose that use in the public job posting.
- 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 - Accessible AI Standard (CAN-ASC-6.2:2025) — Standard, 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
  Information on an AI system's purpose, benefits, and operation must be provided.
  - Canada - British Columbia - AI Responsible Use Principles, Key Focus Areas — 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 AI use.
  - Canada - Ontario - AI Governance Act (Bill 194), Key Focus Areas — 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
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, Key Focus Areas — 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
Kazakhstan
Yes — binding law in force
Users must be told when goods, works, or services were 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, Key Focus Areas — 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
Singapore
Yes — binding law in force
Users may be required by the Court to disclose AI use, declare compliance and identify AI-generated portions.
- Singapore - Generative AI Use in Courts (Registrar's Circular No. 1/2024) — Regulation, In Force
- Singapore - Ethical AI Advisory Council — Guideline, In Force
- Singapore - Personal Data in AI Systems, 1.5 — Guideline, In Force
- and 5 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
South Korea
Yes — binding law in force
Operators must notify users of AI use and identify generative-AI outputs.
- 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 Framework summary — Bill, Proposed
- and 7 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
- TRUMP AMERICA AI Act, Implementation Framework — Bill, Proposed
- and 8 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
35 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
  Developers and deployers must provide disclosures about high-risk systems and consequential decisions.
  - Colorado AI Act Delay, Key Focus Areas; Implementation Framework — Act, In Force
  - United States - Colorado - Synthetic Media Disclosure (HB 24-1147) — 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
  - United States - Connecticut - AI and Data Privacy Act (SB 1103), Sec. 1(b)(2) — Act, In Force
  - and 1 more
  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 human.
  - Georgia AI Chatbot Safety Act, Key Focus Areas — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-07-01)
  - United States - Georgia - AI Governance Guidelines (2024), Implementation Framework — Guideline, In Force (Amended)
  - United States - Georgia - AI Implementation Report (SR 476), Key Focus Areas — Comprehensive AI Policies for Public Entit — Policy, Adopted (from 2024-12-03)
  Status verified 2026-09-08
- HawaiiPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Operators must notify users when a conversational service could be mistaken for a human.
  - Hawaii AI Disclosure and 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 for the use of AI in therapy.
  - Illinois AI in Therapy Act, Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  - 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
  - and 2 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
  Users of covered conversational AI in trade and commerce must clearly disclose its use where consumers may mistake it for a human.
  - United States - Maine - AI Transparency Act, Section 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
  A disclosure is required for manipulated or AI-generated media to qualify for the prohibition's exception.
  - United States - Michigan - Deceptive Media Prohibition (HB 5144), MCL 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, Sections 12 through 18 — 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 must state when an image, video, or audio was manipulated.
  - United States - Nevada - Deepfakes Regulation (AB 73), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
- New HampshirePartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Political advertisements using synthetic media must carry clear disclosures, including throughout videos and at each end of audio.
  - United States - New Hampshire - Deepfakes in Elections (HB 1596), RSA 664:14-c — Act, In Force
  - United States - New Hampshire - Deepfake Regulation (HB 1432) — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- 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
  Frontier developers must provide standardized disclosures on AI capabilities, impacts, and safety practices.
  - New York AI Frontier Model Safety Requirements Act, Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
  - 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
  - and 2 more
  A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- North CarolinaGuidance or policy only
  Agencies must notify individuals affected by AI and explain its purpose and role in decisions.
  - 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
  Political communications created or substantially altered using AI must include a clear disclosure.
  - United States - North Dakota - AI Disclosure in Politics (HB 1167), Chapter 16.1-10 — 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
  - United States - South Dakota - Deepfakes Regulation (SB 164), Section 6 — 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
- TexasPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  A person operating a consumer-interaction AI system must make the required consumer disclosure.
  - United States - Texas - AI Governance Act (HB 149), Sec. 552.051 — Act, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- UtahPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
  Generative AI users must disclose AI interaction upon request, while regulated occupations must disclose it prominently.
  - United States - Utah - AI Policy Act (SB 149), Section 13-2-12(4)(a) — Act, In Force
  - Utah Deepfake Ban and AI Provenance Act, Section 13-72c-203 — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-01-01)
  Status verified 2026-09-10
- VermontProposed
  Patient or client consent is required when AI records identifiable therapeutic communications.
  - Vermont AI Mental Health Services Regulation, 26 V.S.A. § 7101(c)(2) — Bill, In Force
  - United States - Vermont - AI in Insurance (DFR Bulletin 229), Section 3, AIS Program Guidelines, 1.9 — Guideline, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09
- 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
  Electioneering communications containing synthetic media must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure.
  - 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 directly interact with AI, and AI-generated content must be labelled.
- Vietnam AI Act 2025 — Act, In Force
- Vietnam - Responsible AI Development (1290/QD-BKHCN), Key Focus Areas — Transparency — 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 (2)

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 - Draft AI Bill, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Draft
- and 4 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
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
- DWP AI Security Policy for Government Use, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- and 11 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 disclose AI-system information through standardized Register entries.
  - United Kingdom - Scotland - AI Register (2025), Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force

Proposed (4)

Chile
Proposed
Operators must provide user notices and labels when 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), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Under Review
- and 7 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
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: Key Principles – 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
Mexico
Proposed
Entities must notify affected individuals of automated decisions and provide explanation and contestability rights.
- Mexico - Federal AI Legislative Initiatives — Bill, Under Review
- Mexico - Criminal Code Reform on AI (2025) — Bill, Under Review
- Mexico - Protect Dubbing Actors (2025), Compliance Checklist — Bill, Proposed
- and 2 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
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 — Policy, In Force
- Turkey - Deepfake Information Note, Implementation Framework — Transparency and notice — Guideline, In Force
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-09

Guidance or policy only (5)

Australia
Guidance or policy only
Agencies must publish a public transparency statement describing their approach to adopting and using AI.
- Australia - AI Governance Standard, Definitions — Standard, In Force
- Australia - AI Policy Update, Practical impact — Policy, In Force
- Australia - AI Ethics Framework (2019), Core principles for AI, 6. Transparency & Explainability — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-11-07)
- and 6 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
3 of 7 regions address this
- Australian Capital TerritoryGuidance or policy only
  The policy recommends transparent disclosure so individuals 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 WalesGuidance or policy only
  The framework promotes transparency in AI operations to build public confidence.
  - Australia - New South Wales - AI Assurance Framework (2022), Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-17
- Northern TerritoryNot found in the instruments we track
- QueenslandGuidance or policy only
  Agencies must be open about their AI use, including algorithms informing government decisions.
  - Australia - Queensland - AI Governance Policy (RAI-AU-QL-ARTINGO-2024), Key Focus Areas — Transparency and Accountability — Policy, In Force
  - Australia - Queensland - AI Risk Assessment (2024), Implementation guidance — Guideline, 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
- VictoriaNot found in the instruments we track
- Western AustraliaNot found in the instruments we track
Japan
Guidance or policy only
It promotes transparency as an ethical best practice for AI deployment.
- Japan - National AI Strategy, Ethics Guidance — Policy, Adopted (from 2021-06-11)
- Japan - AI Utilization Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-08-09)
- Japan - AI R&D Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Draft
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
Saudi Arabia
Guidance or policy only
It recommends user notices and human-readable model factsheets for transparency and disclosure.
- 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, Implementation Framework — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Switzerland
Guidance or policy only
Staff should disclose AI-tool use and document reliance on 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)
- Switzerland - AI Systems Strategy, Implementation Framework — 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
  Developers must provide information on an AI system's logic, data sources, and intended outcomes for oversight.
  - United Arab Emirates - Dubai - AI Certification Framework, Definitions — Policy, In Force
  - United Arab Emirates - Dubai - Ethical AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
  Status verified 2026-09-09

International organisations (1)

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, Transparency and Information to Users — Regulation, In Force (Amended)
- EU AI Act Enforcement, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- and 10 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

Which countries require AI transparency?

Yes — binding law in force (9)

Argentina

Brazil

Canada

China

Kazakhstan

Singapore

South Korea

United States

Vietnam

Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law (2)

Indonesia

United Kingdom

Proposed (4)

Chile

India

Mexico

Turkey

Guidance or policy only (5)

Australia

Japan

Saudi Arabia

Switzerland

United Arab Emirates

International organisations (1)

European Union