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.

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 draft text of 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 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

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

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 the EU AI Act negotiations, 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 plays a prominent role in EU AI Act negotiations and 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 to generative AI foundation models.

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 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; Turkish government expected to enact AI-specific regulation in the near future.

Türkiye

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
Nigeria

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker - Nigeria

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

Insight
|
6 min read

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

There is currently no specific law or regulation that directly regulates AI in Nigeria.

However, the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) announced in 2022 that it was seeking the contributions of stakeholders to enable the development of the National Artificial Intelligence Policy (NAIP). In March 2023, the NITDA announced that it had completed the first draft of the NAIP.

In August 2023, the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy (FMCIDE) released a white paper announcing steps1 to expand on the draft NAIP by developing a comprehensive National Artificial Intelligence Strategy.

Status of the AI Regulations

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations that directly regulate AI in Nigeria.

Other laws affecting AI

There are various laws that do not directly regulate AI but affect the development or use of AI in Nigeria. A non-exhaustive list of key examples include:

  • The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 20152
  • The Nigeria Data Protection Act, 20233
  • The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules on Robo-Advisory Services4
  • The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 20185
  • The Copyright Act, 20226
  • The Nigerian Communication Commission Act, 20037

Definition of “AI”

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Nigeria that directly regulate AI. However, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), which regulates the telecoms sector, adopted the definition of AI under the American Heritage Science Dictionary and Stanford University8 in its research paper entitled 'Ethical and Societal Impact of Artificial Intelligence'9 ("NCC Research"). In the NCC Research, AI is defined as the ability of a computer or other machine to perform actions thought to require intelligence. The NCC Research goes on to describe AI as the science and a set of computational technologies that are inspired by, but typically operate quite differently from, the ways people use their nervous systems and bodies to sense, learn, reason, and take action.

Territorial scope

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Nigeria that directly regulate AI, but the use of AI may be regulated by other applicable laws, each of which has its own territorial scope. For instance, AI deployed in processing personal data will come within the scope of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023 (NDPA), which has extra-territorial applicability and applies to entities outside Nigeria that process the personal data of Nigerian residents.

Sectoral scope

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Nigeria that directly regulate AI, but the use of AI may be regulated by other applicable laws. For instance, AI deployed in telecommunication services will come under the purview of the Nigerian Communication Commission Act, 2003.

Compliance roles

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Nigeria that directly regulate AI, but the use of AI may be regulated by other applicable laws. For instance, section 37 of the NDPA provides that a data subject shall not be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing of personal data, including profiling which produces legal or similar effect except where there is human intervention and the logic of the decision made is capable of being contested.

Section 29 of the NDPA requires entities to implement technical and organizational measures to protect personal information – This may involve making use of AI tools to protect personal data. 
In summary, both the AI developer and entities or persons using AI to process personal data must ensure that they comply with the NDPA and other applicable laws in developing and using AI.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

The SEC Rules on Robo Advisory Services require a 'Robo Adviser' (i.e., a person who provides digital advisory services) to implement measures that will effectively mitigate against fault and bias in algorithms. In addition, the NDPA always requires human intervention when deploying an AI system and the opportunity for individuals to question the logic of the AI-based decision. Consequently, both laws seek to address bias and advance transparency in AI systems.

Risk categorization

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Nigeria that directly regulate AI, but the use of AI may be regulated by other applicable laws. In particular, the NDPA takes a risk-based approach towards processing personal data, and that risk-based approach applies where AI systems are used to process personal data.

Key compliance requirements

Based on the NDPA, the NDPA subsidiary legislation and the SEC Rules on Robo Advisory Services,10 AI providers and deployers are expected to comply with the following:

  • Conduct a 'Data Protection Impact Assessment'
  • Implement privacy by design and default
  • Maintain a governance framework and record of processing activities
  • Uphold transparency in processing personal data
  • Register as a data controller or processor of major importance in line with section 44 of the NDPA
  • Robo Advisers are required to disclose the following, in writing, to their clients: (i) assumptions, limitations, and risks of the algorithms; (ii) circumstances under which the Robo Adviser may override the algorithms or temporarily halt the Robo Advisory Service; and (iii) any material adjustments to the algorithms
  • Robo Advisers are required to put in place adequate governance and supervisory arrangements to effectively mitigate against fault or bias in the algorithms
  • Robo Advisers are required to develop client-facing tools with a robust algorithm methodology, having proper mechanisms to identify and resolve inconsistent client responses and perform sufficient monitoring and testing, prior to the launch of the tool and when changes are made to the tool, to detect any error or bias in the algorithms
  • Robo Advisers are required to apply the Guidelines on Technology Risk Management (TRM) and file quarterly reports to the SEC on its compliance
  • Robo Advisers are also required to implement internal policies and procedures to address technology risks

Regulators

AI systems are primarily regulated by the National Information and Technology Development Agency through the National Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics.11 Other relevant regulatory bodies include Nigeria Data Protection Commission, Nigeria Communication Commission and Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.

Enforcement powers and penalties

Although there is no specific law against the offensive use of AI, certain laws, such as those mentioned in Section 3 above, may be applicable depending on the offence committed and the nature of the AI.

1 https://fmcide.gov.ng/initiative/nais/
2
https://www.nfiu.gov.ng/images/Downloads/downloads/cybercrime.pdf
3
https://ndpc.gov.ng/Files/Nigeria_Data_Protection_Act_2023.pdf
4
https://sec.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Rules-on-Robo-Advisory-Services_Executed-30-August-2021.pdf
5
https://fccpc.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/FCCPA-2018.pdf
6
https://copyright.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CopyrightAct2023FinalPublication1.pdf
7
https://ncc.gov.ng/accessible/documents/128-nigerian-communications-act-2003/file
8
https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/executive-summary
9
https://www.ncc.gov.ng/docman-main/research-development/919-ethical-and-societal-impact-of-artificial-intelligence-ai/file
10
https://sec.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Rules-on-Robo-Advisory-Services_Executed-30-August-2021.pdf
11
https://nitda.gov.ng/ncair/

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

Jeffrey Shin (Trainee Solicitor, White & Case, London) and Cameron Lee (Trainee Solicitor, White & Case, London) contributed to this publication.


Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie Contributors

Jumoke Lambo

Jumoke Lambo
Partner, UUBO
+234 1 277 4920
jumoke.lambo@uubo.org

Chisom Okolie

Chisom Okolie
Senior Associate, UUBO
+234 1 277 4920
chisom.okolie@uubo.org

Samuel Ngwu

Samuel Ngwu
Associate, UUBO
+234 1 277 4920
samuel.ngwu@uubo.org

Top