Our thinking

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker

What's inside

Keeping track of AI regulatory developments around the world.

The global dash to regulate AI

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made enormous strides in recent years and has increasingly moved into the public consciousness.

Explore Trendscape

Our take on the interconnected global trends that are shaping the business climate for our clients.

Increases in computational power, coupled with advances in machine learning, have fueled the rapid rise of AI. This has brought enormous opportunities, as new AI applications have given rise to new ways of doing business. It has also brought potential risks, from unintended impacts on individuals (e.g., AI errors harming an individual's credit score or public reputation) to the risk of misuse of AI by malicious third parties (e.g., by manipulating AI systems to produce inaccurate or misleading output, or by using AI to create deepfakes).

Governments and regulatory bodies around the world have had to act quickly to try to ensure that their regulatory frameworks do not become obsolete. In addition, international organizations such as the G7, the UN, the Council of Europe and the OECD have responded to this technological shift by issuing their own AI frameworks. But they are all scrambling to stay abreast of technological developments, and already there are signs that emerging efforts to regulate AI will struggle to keep pace. In an effort to introduce some degree of international consensus, the UK government organized the first global AI Safety Summit in November 2023, with the aim of encouraging the safe and responsible development of AI around the world. 

Most jurisdictions have sought to strike a balance between encouraging AI innovation and investment, while at the same time attempting to create rules to protect against possible harms. However, jurisdictions around the world have taken substantially different approaches to achieving these goals, which has in turn increased the risk that businesses face from a fragmented and inconsistent AI regulatory environment. Nevertheless, certain trends are becoming clearer at this stage:

  1. "AI" means different things in different jurisdictions: One of the foundational challenges that any international business faces when designing an AI regulatory compliance strategy is figuring out what constitutes "AI." Unfortunately, the definition of AI varies from one jurisdiction to the next. For example, the EU AI Act adopts a definition of "AI systems" that is based on (but is not identical to) the OECD's definition, and which leaves room for substantial doubt due to its uncertain wording. Canada has proposed a similar, though more concise, definition. Various US states have proposed their own definitions, which differ from one another. And many jurisdictions (e.g., the UK, Israel, China, and Japan) do not currently provide a comprehensive definition of AI. Because several of the proposed AI regulations have extraterritorial effect (meaning more than one AI regulation may apply simultaneously), international businesses may be forced to adopt a "highest common denominator" approach to identifying AI based on the strictest applicable standard.
  2. Emerging AI regulations come in different forms: The various emerging AI regulations have no consistent legal form – some are statutes, some are executive orders, some are expansions of existing regulatory frameworks, and so on. The EU AI Act is a "Regulation" (which means that most of it will apply directly in all EU Member States, without the need for national implementation in most cases). The UK has taken a different approach, declining to legislate at this early stage in the development of AI, and instead choosing to task existing UK regulators with the responsibility of interpreting and applying five AI principles in their respective spheres. In the US, there is a mix of White House Executive Orders, federal and state initiatives, and actions by existing regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. As a result, the types of compliance obligations that international businesses face are likely to be materially different from one jurisdiction to the next. Many other jurisdictions have yet to decide whether they will issue sector-specific or generally applicable rules and have yet to decide between creating new regulators or expanding the roles of existing regulators, making it challenging for businesses to anticipate what form their AI regulatory relationships will take in the long term.
  3. Emerging AI regulations have different conceptual approaches: The next difficulty is the lack of a consistent conceptual approach among emerging AI regulations around the world – some are legally binding while others are not, some are sector-specific while others apply across all sectors, some will be enforced by regulators while others are merely guidelines or recommendations, and so on. As noted above, the UK approach is to use existing regulators to implement five AI principles, but with no new explicit legal obligations. This has the advantage of meaning that businesses will deal with AI regulators with whom they are already familiar but has the disadvantage that different UK regulators may interpret these principles differently in their respective spheres. The EU AI Act is cross-sectoral and creates new regulatory and enforcement powers for existing bodies, including the European Commission, and also creates entirely new bodies such as the AI Board and the AI Office, while leaving EU Member States to appoint their own AI regulators tasked with enforcing the EU AI Act. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Department of Justice issued a joint statement clarifying that their existing authority covers AI, while various state regulators are also likely to have competence to regulate AI. International organizations including the OECD, the UN, and the G7 have issued AI principles, but these impose no legal obligations on businesses. In principle, these initiatives encourage consistency across members of each organization, but in practice this does not seem to have worked.
  4. Flexibility is a double-edged sword: In an effort to create AI regulations that can adapt to technological advances that have not yet been anticipated, many jurisdictions have sought to include substantial flexibility in those regulations, either by using deliberately high-level wording and policies, or by allowing for future interpretation and application by courts and regulators. This has the obvious advantage of prolonging the lifespan of such regulations by allowing them to be adapted to future technologies. However, it also creates the disadvantage of uncertainty because it leaves businesses uncertain of how their compliance obligations will be interpreted in the future. This is likely to mean that it is harder for businesses to know whether their planned implementations of AI will be lawful in the medium-to-long term and may make it harder to attract long-term AI investment in those jurisdictions.
  5. The overlap between AI regulation and other areas of law is complex: A substantial number of laws that are not directly focused on AI nevertheless apply to AI by association within their respective spheres, meaning that any use of AI will often trigger compliance issues and legal challenges even where there is not (yet) any enforceable AI-specific law. These areas of overlap include: IP (e.g., IP infringement issues with respect to AI model training data, and questions about copyright and patentability of AI-assisted inventions); antitrust; data protection (which adds restrictions to processing of personal data, and in some cases imposes special compliance obligations for processing carried out by automated means, including by AI); M&A (where AI innovation is driving dealmaking in many markets); financial regulation (where financial regulatory requirements may limit the ways in which AI can lawfully be deployed); litigation; digital infrastructure; securities; global trade; foreign direct investment; mining & metals; and so on. This overlap will mean that many businesses need to understand not just AI regulations in general, but also any rules that affect the use of AI in the context of the relevant sector or business activity.

Businesses in almost all sectors need to keep a close eye on these developments to ensure that they are aware of the AI regulations and forthcoming trends, in order to identify new opportunities and new potential business risks. But even at this early stage, the inconsistent approaches each jurisdiction has taken to the core questions of how to regulate AI is clear. As a result, it appears that international businesses may face substantially different AI regulatory compliance challenges in different parts of the world. To that end, this AI Tracker is designed to provide businesses with an understanding of the state of play of AI regulations in the core markets in which they operate. It provides analysis of the approach that each jurisdiction has taken to AI regulation and provides helpful commentary on the likely direction of travel.

Because global AI regulations remain in a constant state of flux, this AI Tracker will develop over time, adding updates and new jurisdictions when appropriate. Stay tuned, as we continue to provide insights to help businesses navigate these ever-evolving issues.

Articles

African Union

The African Union's Continental AI Strategy sets the stage for a unified approach to AI governance across the continent.

Africa Union

Australia

Voluntary AI Ethics Principles guide responsible AI development in Australia, with potential reforms under consideration.

Australia

Brazil

The enactment of Brazil's proposed AI Regulation remains uncertain with compliance requirements pending review.

Sao Paulo

Canada

AIDA expected to regulate AI at the federal level in Canada but provincial legislatures have yet to be introduced.

Canada

China

The Interim AI Measures is China's first specific, administrative regulation on the management of generative AI services.

China

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is developing a new Convention on AI to safeguard human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the digital space covering governance, accountability and risk assessment.

European Union

Czech Republic

The successful implementation of the EU AI Act into national law is the primary focus for the Czech Republic, with its National AI Strategy being the main policy document.

Czech Republic

European Union

The EU introduces the pioneering EU AI Act, aiming to become a global hub for human-centric, trustworthy AI.

 

European Union

France

France actively participates in international efforts and proposes sector-specific laws.

Paris

G7

The G7's AI regulations mandate Member States' compliance with international human rights law and relevant international frameworks.

G7 flags

Germany

Germany evaluates AI-specific legislation needs and actively engages in international initiatives.

Germany

India

National frameworks inform India’s approach to AI regulation, with sector-specific initiatives in finance and health sectors.

India

Israel

Israel promotes responsible AI innovation through policy and sector-specific guidelines to address core issues and ethical principles.

Israel

Italy

Italy engages in political discussions for future laws.

Milan

Japan

Japan adopts a soft law approach to AI governance but lawmakers advance proposal for a hard law approach for certain harms.

Tokyo

Kenya

Kenya's National AI Strategy and Code of Practice expected to set foundation of AI regulation once finalized.

Kenya
Kenya

Nigeria

Nigeria's draft National AI Policy underway and will pave the way for a comprehensive national AI strategy.

Nigeria
Nigeria

Norway

Position paper informs Norwegian approach to AI, with sector-specific legislative amendments to regulate developments in AI.

Norway

OECD

The OECD's AI recommendations encourage Member States to uphold principles of trustworthy AI.

country flags

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is yet to enact AI Regulations, relying on guidelines to establish practice standards and general principles.

Riyadh_Hero_1600x600 Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Singapore's AI frameworks guide AI ethical and governance principles, with existing sector-specific regulations addressing AI risks.

Singapore

South Africa

South Africa is yet to announce any AI regulation proposals but is in the process of obtaining inputs for a draft National AI plan.

Johannesburg

South Korea

South Korea's AI Act to act as a consolidated body of law governing AI once approved by the National Assembly.

Korea

Spain

Spain creates Europe's first AI supervisory agency and actively participates in EU AI Act negotiations.

Madrid

Switzerland

Switzerland's National AI Strategy sets out guidelines for the use of AI, and aims to finalize an AI regulatory proposal in 2025.

Switzerland

Taiwan

Draft laws and guidelines are under consideration in Taiwan, with sector-specific initiatives already in place.

Taiwan city

Turkey

Turkey has published multiple guidelines on the use of AI in various sectors, with a bill for AI regulation now in the legislative process.

Türkiye

United Arab Emirates

Mainland UAE has published an array of decrees and guidelines regarding regulation of AI, while the ADGM and DIFC free zones each rely on amendments to existing data protection laws to regulate AI.

UAE

United Kingdom

The UK prioritizes a flexible framework over comprehensive regulation and emphasizes sector-specific laws.

London hero image

United Nations

The UN's new draft resolution on AI encourages Member States to implement national regulatory and governance approaches for a global consensus on safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems.

United Nations

United States

The US relies on existing federal laws and guidelines to regulate AI but aims to introduce AI legislation and a federal regulation authority.

New York city photo

Contacts

Tim Hickman
Partner
London
Erin Hanson
Partner
New York
Dr. Sylvia Lorenz
Partner
Berlin
Africa Union

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker - African Union

The African Union's Continental AI Strategy sets the stage for a unified approach to AI governance across the continent.

Insight
|
10 min read

Laws/Regulations directly regulating AI (the “AI Regulations”)

There are no comprehensive, binding laws or regulations specifically governing AI across the entire African Union (AU). However, the AU has shown interest in AI governance, recognizing its potential to drive socio-economic transformation. The Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy1 ("Continental AI Strategy") was endorsed by the AU Executive Council in July 2024 and reflects this vision. The Continental AI Strategy promotes ethical, responsible, and equitable AI practices across the continent, aligning with Africa’s Agenda 2063 goals to accelerate social and economic transformation.

Status of the AI Regulations

The Continental AI Strategy includes a phased implementation plan from 2025 to 2030, beginning with preparatory activities in 2024. Phase I (2025-2026) is focused on creating governance frameworks, national AI strategies, resource mobilization, and capacity building. Phase II, starting in 2028, aims to implement core projects informed by a review in 2027. The Continental AI Strategy focuses on five areas: harnessing AI’s benefits, building capabilities, minimizing risks, fostering cooperation, and stimulating investment.

Resource mobilization involves investing in and collaborating with partners to finance and support AI initiatives, with a focus on developing broadband connectivity, enhancing data infrastructure, and establishing high-performance computing systems, as outlined in the Continental AI Strategy.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is due to be coordinated with Member States, involving the development of an African AI readiness index and a dedicated M&E portal.

A midterm review in 2027 aims to refine indicators and improve implementation.

The AU aims to also establish a web platform to track progress in expanding AI benefits, mitigating risks, and building capacities in skills, research, and innovation.

Other laws affecting AI

As of now, several African countries have adopted AI strategies, each with unique focuses and stages of implementation:

  • Algeria's AI Research and Innovation Strategy, adopted in 20212, is currently under review to consider recent advancements in AI technologies. This strategy emphasizes the establishment of a center of excellence in AI, addressing ethical and security issues, and promoting international collaboration.
  • Benin's 2023 AI and Big Data Strategy3 aims to lay the foundations for a robust, sustainable digital ecosystem, focusing on building a national data infrastructure, promoting AI solutions, developing human capital, fostering research and innovation, and implementing an AI governance framework.
  • Egypt's National AI Strategy4, also adopted in 2021, covers the adoption, implementation, and use of AI in government and national development, with a particular focus on human capacity building, startup ecosystem enhancement, and R&D in AI, including natural language processing.
  • Mauritius published its AI strategy in 20185, recognizing the potential of AI to address social and economic challenges across various sectors such as manufacturing, healthcare, fintech, and agriculture. The strategy is guided by principles of accountability, ethics, and inclusiveness.
  • Rwanda's AI policy6, published in 2023, serves as a roadmap for harnessing the benefits of AI while mitigating its risks. The policy focuses on positioning Rwanda as Africa's AI lab and responsible AI champion, building skills, creating an open and secure data ecosystem, and driving public sector transformation.
  • Senegal's AI strategy7, also published in 2023, aims to contribute to the country’s national development plan by developing human capacity, supporting solutions that address development problems, fostering public-private partnerships, and creating an inclusive and trusted AI ecosystem.
  • Morocco has taken significant steps in AI development, including the establishment of the International Centre on Artificial Intelligence affiliated with the Mohammed VI Polytechnic University in AI and Data Sciences, designated a UNESCO category II center in November 2023.
  • Other countries such as Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritania, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Uganda are also making significant progress in defining AI policies and establishing institutions to drive AI development.

Definition of "AI"

As described in the Continental AI Strategy, AI refers to "computer systems that can simulate the processes of natural intelligence exhibited by humans where machines use technologies that enable them to learn and adapt, sense and interact, predict and recommend reason and plan, optimize procedures and parameters, operate autonomously, be creative and extract knowledge from large amounts of data to make decisions and recommendations for the purpose of achieving a set of objectives identified by humans." (p.14)

Territorial scope

The AU is made up of 55 Member States which represent all the countries on the African continent.

Member States are expected to domesticate the Continental AI Strategy by developing and implementing their own national AI strategies, tailored to their specific contexts and capabilities. The Strategy emphasizes the need for Member States to build capacity, establish governance frameworks, and align with the broader continental objectives set by the AU. Key enablers for this include increasing mobile penetration, improving digital infrastructure, and fostering public-private partnerships. However, inhibitors such as limited AI talent, inadequate data availability, and infrastructure gaps must be addressed to ensure successful implementation. Strengthening AI readiness and aligning national priorities with the broader Continental AI Strategy will be crucial for overcoming these challenges.

Entities engaged in partnerships, collaborations, or joint ventures with AU Member States or their institutions, are also required to adhere to local AI regulations. Additionally, foreign entities providing AI-based products or services to AU entities must meet the legal, ethical, and safety standards set by national and continental guidelines. Those processing or managing data originating from AU Member States must comply with data protection laws and AI regulations to ensure data security and privacy. Entities involved in funding or providing technical assistance for AI projects within AU Member States need to align their operations with both continental and national AI regulations to support the AU's strategic goals, as outlined in the Continental AI Strategy.

Sectoral scope

According to the Continental AI Strategy, future AI regulations will aim to:

  • Regulate entities based on the sector in which they operate, ensuring responsible AI development and use across diverse fields
  • Emphasize a multi-tiered governance approach grounded in ethical principles, democratic values, and human rights to mitigate risks and promote transparency and accountability

Key sectors regulated will include intellectual property, electronic communications and transactions, whistleblowing and protected disclosure, access to information, personal data protection, cybersecurity, consumer protection, and antitrust and competition.

Additionally, the regulations will focus on inclusion and empowerment, particularly for underrepresented groups such as women, girls, people with disabilities, youth, children, and rural populations.

Specific sectoral regulations will also address labor protections for gig and platform workers, standards for public procurement of AI systems, regulatory approval for AI as medical devices in healthcare, and alignment with international standards for social media and content generation.

Overall, the AU's AI regulations will aim to ensure that AI's benefits are equitably distributed and its risks effectively mitigated across various sectors, fostering inclusive, fair, and sustainable AI ecosystems.

Compliance roles

The Continental AI Strategy delineates specific compliance roles for AI developers, deployers, and users to ensure responsible AI development, deployment, and use, which emphasizes a multi-tiered governance approach. This includes establishing regulatory sandboxes to promote innovation and independent oversight institutions to ensure transparency and accountability throughout the AI lifecycle.

AI developers are obligated to adhere to ethical standards, mitigate risks throughout the AI lifecycle, ensure transparency and accountability, and comply with data protection laws.

Deployers must comply with sector-specific regulations, conduct impact assessments, establish monitoring frameworks, and report any incidents or violations.

AI users are required to be informed about the AI systems they interact with, ensure data security, and adhere to usage policies.

Additionally, the Continental AI Strategy discusses independent oversight through institutions that enforce compliance and provide redress, stakeholder engagement in AI strategy design, and continuous research to assess new risks and develop policy innovations. These roles and obligations aim to foster a responsible, transparent, and accountable AI ecosystem across the continent.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

The Continental AI Strategy aims to address several core issues, including the risks to the rights and freedoms of individuals, the economy, and national security. The Strategy emphasizes the importance of ethical principles, democratic values, and human rights to safeguard against potential harms posed by AI technologies.

Additionally, the Continental AI Strategy seeks to mitigate economic risks by promoting fair competition, consumer protection, and responsible innovation.

Overall, the Continental AI Strategy strives to create a balanced and secure AI ecosystem that benefits society while minimizing risks.

Risk categorization

The Continental AI Strategy categorizes AI according to different levels of risk and outlines corresponding obligations for each level.

The regulations identify key risk dimensions, including environmental impact, social inequalities, biases, privacy concerns, gender disparities, job displacement, and threats to African values such as societal cohesion, democracy, and cultural heritage.

High-risk AI systems, particularly those with significant environmental footprints or those prone to perpetuating biases and discrimination, are subject to stringent oversight and impact assessments. Obligations for such systems include rigorous ethical reviews, transparency mandates, robust data protection measures, and mechanisms to mitigate biases.

Medium-risk AI applications, such as those impacting job markets or digital access, require continuous monitoring, public consultations, and adaptive policy frameworks to address emerging issues.

Lower-risk AI uses must still comply with general principles of transparency, accountability, and ethical standards, ensuring they do not inadvertently harm individuals or communities.

By categorizing AI systems based on risk levels, the AU’s regulations will aim to balance innovation with the protection of rights, economic stability, and cultural integrity.

Key compliance requirements

The Continental AI Strategy introduces key compliance requirements to ensure responsible AI development and deployment.

These include mandatory transparency in AI operations and public disclosure, robust cybersecurity and personal data protection measures, and ensuring AI explainability, where decisions can be understood and interpreted by humans.

Human control mechanisms must be in place to review and override AI decisions when necessary.

The regulations also require bias mitigation strategies, adherence to ethical standards, and accountability frameworks to align AI with human rights and social justice.

Conducting impact assessments and engaging a wide range of stakeholders, including public consultations, are essential to address potential risks and ensure inclusivity in AI strategies.

These requirements aim to foster a transparent, secure, fair, and accountable AI ecosystem across the continent.

Regulators

The enforcement of AI Regulations will likely be overseen by a combination of national and regional regulatory bodies, depending on the jurisdiction and sector, ensuring effective oversight and compliance. National AI Councils will play a critical role in formulating and implementing AI policies, while regional bodies will promote harmonization across Member States. Independent oversight institutions will ensure transparency and provide mechanisms for redress in case of violations. Additionally, the establishment of regulatory sandboxes will enable controlled testing of innovative AI solutions, fostering responsible innovation. Collaboration between sector-specific regulators, such as data protection authorities, cybersecurity agencies, and consumer protection bodies, will be essential to address the multi-faceted nature of AI risks and opportunities. These entities will work in coordination with the African Union’s overarching principles to align national efforts with the broader goals of the Continental AI Strategy.

Key regulators include National Data Protection Authorities for data protection and privacy compliance, sector-specific regulatory agencies for fields such as healthcare, finance, and telecommunications, and national cybersecurity authorities to protect AI systems from cyber threats.

Consumer protection agencies ensure AI technologies in consumer products comply with relevant laws, while National AI Councils or Commissions oversee AI development and regulation. Independent oversight institutions may also be established for independent review and enforcement.

Additionally, the Continental AI Strategy notes that governments should encourage access to diverse data sets through regulatory sandboxes that promote responsible AI innovation. These sandboxes facilitate legislative amendments allowing trials within limited geographical areas or time periods and include measures for close monitoring when supervision is required.

At the regional level, the African Union itself plays a coordinating role to ensure that Member States adhere to the overarching principles and standards set out in the AU's AI regulations.

Enforcement powers and penalties

The Continental AI Strategy does not specify detailed enforcement powers and penalties.

The AU aims to support Member States in establishing independent institutions to oversee AI use, enforce compliance with emerging standards, and provide access to redress and remedy where violations occur.

1 African Union Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy available here. 2 Algeria's AI Research and Innovation Strategy available here.
3 Benin's 2023 AI and Big Data Strategy available
here.
4 Egypt's National AI Strategy available
here.
5 Mauritius AI strategy available
here.
6 Rwanda's AI policy available
here.
7 Senegal’s AI strategy available
here.

Sulaiman Iqbal (Trainee Solicitor, White & Case, London) contributed to this publication.

White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.

This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.

© 2024 White & Case LLP

Top