Which countries require human oversight of AI?
Duties of human oversight or review, and rights to a human decision instead of an automated one.
10 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 forceGenerative-AI outputs require express validation and professional judgment by the responsible public official.
- Argentina - Santa Fe - AI Adoption Protocol (2726/2025), Anexo, Artículo 2° — Decree, In Force
- Argentina - San Luis - Judicial AI Protocol (2024), Sources and References / Acuerdo N° 202-STJSL-SA-2024 — Regulation, In Force
- Argentina - Virtual Assistant Implementation (1486/2025) — Regulation, In Force
- and 7 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
4 of 4 regions address this
- Buenos AiresGuidance or policy only
Administrative acts and decisions based on AI outputs require prior and subsequent review by a competent official.
- Argentina - Buenos Aires - Generative AI Guidelines, Definitions — Guideline, In Force
- JujuyGuidance or policy only
Users remain responsible for AI outputs under their supervision and must ensure legal and ethical compliance.
- Argentina - Jujuy - AI Use Protocol (Acordada N° 31/2025), Penalties, Liability, and Appeals — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-07
- Río NegroGuidance or policy only
AI outputs must undergo human validation and AI may not substitute for human judicial judgment.
- Argentina - Río Negro - AI Good Practices Protocol (RAI-AR-RN-PDBPPXX-2024), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
- San JuanPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
A human official must review, validate, and accept responsibility for AI output before it has legal effect.
- Argentina - San Juan - AI Judicial Protocol (2024), Definitions — Regulation, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
Brazil
Yes — binding law in forceJudicial computer systems must require human supervision and allow judges to modify AI-generated outputs.
- Brazil - AI Governance in Judiciary (615/2025), Art. 34 — Regulation, In Force
- Brazil - National AI Regulation (2.338/2023), Art. 3º, III — 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.
China
Yes — binding law in forceA human must take over conversations when users explicitly present suicide or self-harm scenarios.
- China - Anthropomorphic AI Services Regulation, 第十一条 — Regulation, In Force
- China - Algorithmic Recommendation Regulation (Order No. 9), 第十一条 — Regulation, In Force
- China - Personal Information Protection Law (2021) — Act, In Force
- and 2 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 forceOwners, holders, and users must maintain continuous control over AI throughout its lifecycle.
- Kazakhstan - AI Regulation (2025), Статья 8, пункт 1 — Act, In Force (Amended)
- Kazakhstan Digital Code, Penalties, Liability, and Appeals — Act, Adopted (from 2026-07-01)
- Kazakhstan AI Ethics Code, Definitions — Guideline, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-10
Singapore
Yes — binding law in forceCourt Users must personally review, fact-check, adapt and verify AI-generated content before filing.
- Singapore - Generative AI Use in Courts (Registrar's Circular No. 1/2024) — Regulation, In Force
- Singapore - Ethical AI Advisory Council — Guideline, In Force
- Singapore - AI Model Risk Management, Section 7.1.9 — Guideline, In Force
- and 2 more
Status verified 2026-09-10
Vietnam
Yes — binding law in forceHigh-risk AI systems must have effective human oversight and control.
- Vietnam AI Act 2025 — Act, In Force
- Vietnam - Responsible AI Development (1290/QD-BKHCN), Key Focus Areas — Controllability — 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 (3)
India
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) lawIntermediaries must use proportionate technology-based content-identification measures with human oversight and review of automated tools.
- India - Digital Media Ethics Code (2021), Implementation Framework — Regulation, In Force (Amended)
- India - AI Governance Guidelines (2025), Part 1: Key Principles – 02 People First — Guideline, In Force
- India - National AI Strategy, Cross-sector themes — Policy, Adopted (from 2018-06-01)
Status verified 2026-09-08
1 of 4 regions address this
- KarnatakaNot found in the instruments we track
- MaharashtraGuidance or policy only
AI advisories are to support rather than replace agricultural experts' professional judgment.
- 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
United Kingdom
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) lawAutomated decisions using non-sensitive personal data must include human review pathways.
- United Kingdom - Data Access Reform (2025) — Act, In Force
- DWP AI Security Policy for Government Use, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- United Kingdom - AI Playbook, Using AI safely and responsibly > Human oversight — Guideline, In Force (Amended)
- and 3 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
0 of 1 regions address this
- ScotlandNot found in the instruments we track
United States
Partly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) lawCoverage determinations using AI must be individualized rather than based solely on algorithmic outputs.
- CMS 2024 Medicare Advantage Policy and AI Guidance, Overview — Regulation, In Force
- US Federal AI Acceleration Memo, Section 4(b)(v) — Policy, In Force
- ABA Guidance on Lawyers' Ethical AI Use, Key Focus Areas — Competence (Model Rule 1.1) — Guideline, In Force
- and 8 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
13 of 51 states address this
- AlabamaNot found in the instruments we track
- AlaskaNot found in the instruments we track
- ArizonaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Insurers must obtain an individual medical-director review using independent medical judgment before specified denials.
- United States - Arizona - AI Claim Denial Restrictions (HB 2175), A.R.S. §§ 20-3103 and 20-3407 — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- ArkansasPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Public-entity policies must preserve final decision authority for human employees or designees.
- United States - Arkansas - AI Policy Requirements (Act 848), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-07
- CaliforniaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Driverless testing requires continuous monitoring and remote operators able to take control in emergencies.
- California AV Testing and Deployment Rules, Key Focus Areas — Regulation, In Force
- California Healthcare AI Transparency and Accountability Bill, Labor Code Section 2821(b)(1) — Bill, Adopted (from 2027-07-01)
Status verified 2026-09-08
- ColoradoPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
A regulated professional must review AI treatment recommendations and retain responsibility for administrative AI use.
- Colorado Psychotherapy AI Restrictions Act — Act, In Force
- Colorado AI in Healthcare Act, Implementation Framework — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-01-01)
- Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Act — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-01-01)
Status verified 2026-09-08
- ConnecticutNot found in the instruments we track
- DelawareNot found in the instruments we track
- FloridaNot found in the instruments we track
- GeorgiaAdopted — not yet in force
Final healthcare coverage denials require review and approval by a qualified human clinical peer.
- Georgia AI in Insurance Coverage Act, Key Focus Areas — Act, Awaiting Entry (from 2027-01-01)
- United States - Georgia - AI Governance Guidelines (2024), Overview — 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)
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-07
- HawaiiNot found in the instruments we track
- IdahoPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
AI implementations must preserve human educators' ultimate control and decision-making authority.
- Idaho K-12 Generative AI Education Act, Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-10
- IllinoisPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Licensed professionals must directly review and approve AI therapeutic recommendations and treatment plans.
- Illinois AI in Therapy Act, Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
- Illinois AI Teacher Evaluation Ban, Evaluation of Certified Employees Article — Bill, Adopted
- Illinois AI Healthcare Downcoding Bill, Implementation Framework — Bill, Awaiting Entry (from 2028-01-01)
- 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 and providers must ensure human review when automated processes, including AI, are used for specified claims actions.
- Indiana AI Health Claims Law, IC 27-1-52 — 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
- 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
- MontanaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
AI-controlled critical infrastructure must include human control and intervention mechanisms for emergencies.
- United States - Montana - Right to Compute Act (SB 212), Overview — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
- NebraskaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Adverse prior-authorization determinations must be made by a qualified physician or clinical peer rather than automated systems.
- Nebraska Prior Authorization Transparency Act — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
- NevadaNot found in the instruments we track
- New HampshireNot found in the instruments we track
- New JerseyNot found in the instruments we track
- New MexicoNot found in the instruments we track
- New YorkNot found in the instruments we track
- North CarolinaPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
Each Cabinet agency must establish an AI Oversight Team to lead its AI-related work.
- United States - North Carolina - AI Governance (24), Governance and Institutional Framework — Decree, In Force
- United States - North Carolina - Responsible AI Framework, Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
- 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
- UtahProposed
Insurers must ensure adverse clinical or medical-necessity determinations are made using independent medical judgment rather than solely other recommendations.
- Utah Health Insurance AI Disclosure Law, Section 31A-22-650(6)(e)(ii) — Bill, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-07
- VermontNot found in the instruments we track
- VirginiaNot found in the instruments we track
- WashingtonPartly — regional, framework or general (non-AI) law
AI cannot be the sole means for adverse care decisions, and medical-necessity denials require human review.
- Washington AI in Insurance Prior Authorization Act, Sec. 2(3)(a) — Act, In Force
- United States - Washington - Responsible AI Policy, Implementation Framework — 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
Proposed (3)
Chile
ProposedThe bill mandates human oversight and identification of human-in-the-loop points.
- Chile - AI and Robotics Regulation (Boletín 15869-19) — Bill, Under Review
- Chile - AI Development Limits (17112-19), Antecedentes — Bill, Under Review
- Chile - AI Systems Regulation (Boletín 16821-19) — Bill, Under Review
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-08
Indonesia
ProposedHuman oversight measures are required for critical AI decision-making systems.
- Indonesia - National AI Regulation — Decree, Draft
- Indonesia - Draft AI Bill, Key Focus Areas — Bill, Draft
- Indonesia - National AI Roadmap, Compliance Checklist — Policy, Draft
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
Turkey
ProposedHigh-risk AI uses must have mandatory human oversight.
- Turkey - AI Law Amendments (Esas No. 2/3358), Key Focus Areas — Bill, Under Review
- Turkey - GAI Ethics Guide — Guideline, In Force
- Turkey - Personal Data Protection Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
Guidance or policy only (7)
Australia
Guidance or policy onlyThe implementation measures require human oversight proportionate to risk.
- Australia - AI Policy Update, Mandatory requirements and implementation measures — Policy, In Force
- Australia - AI Ethics Framework (2019), Executive summary — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-11-07)
- Australia - AI Assurance Framework (2024), Compliance Checklist — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Status verified 2026-09-09
7 of 7 regions address this
- Australian Capital TerritoryGuidance or policy only
AI-assisted decision-making must have human oversight for review and intervention.
- Australia - Australian Capital Territory - AI Policy (2025) — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- New South WalesGuidance or policy only
High or critical residual-risk systems must be reviewed by the AI Review Committee.
- Australia - New South Wales - AI Assurance Framework (2022), Implementation Framework — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-17
- Northern TerritoryGuidance or policy only
All AI systems and projects must undergo assessment throughout their lifecycle, with regular reviews of AI services.
- Australia - Northern Territory - AI Assurance Framework (2024), Implementation Framework — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- QueenslandGuidance or policy only
Agencies must apply an ethical framework that addresses human oversight.
- Australia - Queensland - AI Governance Policy (2024), Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-10
- TasmaniaGuidance or policy only
Agencies are recommended to retain human oversight and accountability for AI-generated outcomes and decisions.
- Australia - Tasmania - AI Use Guidelines (2024), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
- VictoriaGuidance or policy only
Human beings must oversee accuracy checks and approve disposal of AI-derived public records.
- Australia - Victoria - AI Recordkeeping Policy (RAI-AU-VI-AIATRXX-2024), Key Focus Areas — Policy, In Force
- Australia - Victoria - Generative AI Guidelines, Implementation support and technical guidance — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
- Western AustraliaGuidance or policy only
Each WA health entity must appoint an executive officer to oversee AI governance.
- Australia - Western Australia - AI Policy Framework (RAI-AU-WA-WESAUAI-2024), Section 3.3 Governance — Policy, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
Canada
Guidance or policy onlyIt requires human alternative review options to be available.
- Canada - Accessible AI Standard (CAN-ASC-6.2:2025) — Standard, In Force
- Canada - Generative AI Guidance, FASTER principles — Guideline, In Force
- Canada - Automated Decision-Making Directive, 6.3.9 — Policy, In Force (Amended)
- and 3 more
Status verified 2026-09-09
3 of 4 regions address this
- AlbertaNot found in the instruments we track
- British ColumbiaGuidance or policy only
Human roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined for AI design, deployment, and oversight.
- 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 ensure an individual oversees the AI system's use.
- Canada - Ontario - AI Governance Act (Bill 194), Key Focus Areas — Act, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
- QuebecGuidance or policy only
AI responsibility includes appropriate governance and controls, including human supervision or validation.
- Canada - Quebec - Responsible AI Use Guidelines, Principe de la responsabilité 9 — Guideline, In Force
A possible change to a cited instrument is not yet verified.
Japan
Guidance or policy onlyHuman-in-the-loop controls should be used where risks to people are significant.
- Japan - AI Utilization Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, Adopted (from 2019-08-09)
- Japan - AI R&D Guidelines, Implementation Framework — Guideline, Draft
- Japan's National AI Basic Plan, Compliance Checklist — Policy, In Force (Amended)
Status verified 2026-09-10
Saudi Arabia
Guidance or policy onlyHuman review is required for medium- and high-risk outputs, including critical decisions.
- Saudi Arabia - Generative AI Guidelines, Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- Saudi Arabia - AI Ethics Principles — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-09
South Korea
Guidance or policy onlyControllers must enable refusal of solely automated harmful decisions and provide human review.
- South Korea - Automated Decision Rights Guide — Guideline, Adopted
- South Korea - User Protection for Generative AI Services, Ⅳ. 기본 원칙 1 — Guideline, In Force
- South Korea - Public Data Processing Guide, Implementation measures — Guideline, In Force
Status verified 2026-09-08
0 of 1 regions address this
- SeoulNot found in the instruments we track
Switzerland
Guidance or policy onlyThe report recommends that AI deployments in government and critical sectors include human oversight.
- Switzerland - AI Challenges Report, Priority actions — Policy, Adopted
- Switzerland - AI Governance Guidelines (08/2024), Key Focus Areas — Guideline, In Force
- Switzerland - Generative AI Guidelines, TEXT, operational instructions — Guideline, In Force
- and 1 more
Status verified 2026-09-08
United Arab Emirates
Guidance or policy onlyIt requires human-in-the-loop or human-on-the-loop controls for AI systems.
- 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
Critical AI decisions must be reviewed and approved by a human operator.
- 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
Not found in the instruments we track (1)
Mexico
Not found in the instruments we track
International organisations (1)
European Union
Yes — binding law in forceIt requires human oversight measures for high-risk AI systems and assigns deployers responsibility for ensuring that oversight.
- EU AI Act, Implementation Framework — Regulation, In Force (Amended)
- EU AI Act Enforcement, Compliance Checklist — Regulation, In Force
- EU Machinery Regulation 2023: AI Safety, Annex III, Section 3.2.4 — Regulation, In Force
- and 8 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