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
country flags

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker - OECD

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

Insight
|
9 min read

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

The OECD's Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence1 (the "Recommendation") adopted by 46 governments2 as of July 2021 (the "Adherents"), contains:

  • The OECD's AI Principles (the "Principles"), which were the first intergovernmental standard on AI and formed the basis for the G20's AI Principles3 
  • Five recommendations to be implemented in the Adherents' national policies and international cooperation for trustworthy AI (the "Five Recommendations")

The OECD's policy paper on "Assessing future AI risks, benefits, and policy imperatives"4, published on November 14, 2024, emphasizes the need for proactive AI governance.

The OECD's Expert Group on AI Futures explores potential AI impacts, guiding policymakers on crafting forward-looking policies. Key identified benefits include accelerating scientific progress, improving economic growth, reducing inequality, enhancing decision-making, and empowering citizens. However, significant risks such as cyber threats, disinformation, AI safety lapses, power concentration, and privacy violations are also highlighted. The report suggests ten policy priorities including establishing clear AI liability rules, restricting harmful AI uses, ensuring AI transparency, and promoting international cooperation to manage competitive race dynamics. Governments are urged to implement these strategies to maximize AI benefits and mitigate risks, with ongoing initiatives indicating progress, yet emphasizing the need for more concrete actions. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether such urgings will be sufficient to stem the divergence of AI regulatory approaches that has arisen from one jurisdiction to the next.
 

Status of the AI Regulations 

The Adherents have agreed to promote, implement, and adhere to the Recommendation. The Principles contribute to other AI initiatives, such as the G7's Hiroshima AI Process Comprehensive Policy Framework (including the International Guiding Principles on AI for Organizations Developing Advanced AI Systems and the International Code of Conduct for Organizations Developing Advanced AI Systems).

Other laws affecting AI

While certain OECD instruments can be legally binding on members, most are not. However, OECD recommendations represent a political commitment to the principles they contain and entail an expectation that Adherents will endeavor to implement them.5 Notwithstanding, a non-exhaustive list of OECD guidance that does not directly seek to regulate AI, but may affect the development or use of AI includes:

  • The Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data
  • The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
  • The Recommendation of the Council on Consumer Protection in E-commerce

Definition of “AI”

The OECD's definition of "AI system" was revised on November 8, 2023 to ensure that it continues to accurately reflect technological developments, including with respect to generative AI.6 AI is defined in the Recommendation using the following terms:

  • "AI actors" means "those who play an active role in the AI system lifecycle, including organizations and individuals that deploy or operate AI."
  • "AI knowledge" means "the skills and resources, such as data, code, algorithms, models, research, know-how, training programmes, governance, processes and best practices required to understand and participate in the AI system lifecycle." 
  • "AI system" means "a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. Different AI systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptiveness after deployment." 
  • "AI system lifecycle" involves the following phases: "i) ‘design, data and models'; which is a context-dependent sequence encompassing planning and design, data collection and processing, as well as model building; ii) ‘verification and validation'; iii) ‘deployment'; and iv) ‘operation and monitoring'. These phases often take place in an iterative manner and are not necessarily sequential. The decision to retire an AI system from operation may occur at any point during the operation and monitoring phase."

Territorial scope

The Adherents (who are expected to promote and implement the Recommendation – see above) include the following 46 OECD members and non-members.7  

Specific obligations would be placed on AI actors by Adherents implementing the Recommendation. However, the term "AI actors" is not defined in the Recommendation by reference to territory.

Sectoral scope 

The Recommendation is not sector-specific. As discussed above, Adherents are expected to promote and implement the Recommendation and, by doing so, specific obligations should be placed on AI actors. However, the term "AI actors" is not defined in the Recommendation by reference to sector.

Compliance roles 

Adherents are expected to comply with the Recommendation, although the Recommendation does not explicitly govern compliance or regulatory oversight. Certain Principles relating to human-centered values and fairness, transparency and accountability are applicable to AI actors. Whether and to what extent AI actors have to comply with the Principles depends on the relevant Adherent state's approach to implementation.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

The OECD's AI Regulations intend to help shape a stable policy environment at the international level that promotes a human-centric approach to trustworthy AI, fosters research, and preserves economic incentives to innovate.8

Risk categorization

AI is not categorized according to risk in the Recommendation. 

In order to promote a stable policy environment with regard to AI risk frameworks, the OECD has stated that it intends to analyze the criteria that should be included in a risk assessment and how to best aggregate such criteria, taking into account that different criteria may be interdependent.9

Key compliance requirements 

The Adherents are expected to promote and implement the following Principles:10

  1. AI should pursue inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being: This includes reducing economic, social, gender and other inequalities, and protecting natural environments. 
  2. AI should incorporate human-centered values and fairness: AI actors should respect the rule of law, human rights and democratic values throughout the AI system lifecycle, and implement appropriate safeguards to that end.
  3. AI should be transparent and explainable: AI actors should provide information to foster a general understanding of AI systems, make stakeholders aware of their interactions with AI systems, and enable those affected by an AI system to understand and challenge the outcome. 
  4. AI systems should be robust, secure, and safe so that, in conditions of normal use, foreseeable use or misuse, or other adverse conditions, they do not pose an unreasonable safety risk. To this end, AI actors should ensure traceability to enable analysis of the AI systems' output and apply a systematic risk management approach. 
  5. Accountability: AI actors should be accountable for the proper functioning of AI systems and for the respect of the Principles.

The Adherents are also expected to promote and implement the Five Recommendations:11

  1. Investing in AI research and development. Governments should consider long-term public investment and encourage private investment in research, development, and open datasets that are representative and respect data privacy and data protection in order to spur innovation in trustworthy AI and support an environment for AI that is free of inappropriate bias.
  2. Fostering a digital ecosystem for AI. Governments should foster the development of, and access to, a digital ecosystem for trustworthy AI by promoting mechanisms, such as data trusts, to ensure the safe, fair, legal and ethical sharing of data.
  3. Shaping an enabling policy environment for AI. Governments should: (i) promote a policy environment that supports an agile transition from the research and development stage to the deployment and operation stage for trustworthy AI systems; and (ii) review and adapt policy and regulatory frameworks and assessment mechanisms as they apply to AI systems to encourage innovation and competition for trustworthy AI.
  4. Building human capacity and preparing for labor market transformation. Governments should: (i) collaborate with stakeholders to ensure people are prepared for AI-related changes in society and work by equipping them with necessary skills; (ii) take steps to ensure a fair transition for workers affected by AI, by offering training and support; and (iii) promote the responsible use of AI at work to enhance worker safety and the quality of jobs.
  5. International co-operation for trustworthy AI. Governments should: (i) actively co-operate to advance the Principles and progress the responsible stewardship of AI; (ii) work together in the OECD and other forums to foster the sharing of AI knowledge; (iii) promote the development of multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven global technical standards; and (iv) encourage the development, and their own use, of internationally comparable metrics to measure AI research, development, and deployment, using the evidence to assess progress in the implementation of the Principles. 

Regulators

The OECD does not regulate the implementation of the Recommendation, although it does monitor and analyse information relating to AI initiatives through its AI Policy Observatory. The AI Policy Observatory includes a live database of AI strategies, policies and initiatives that countries and other stakeholders can share and update, enabling the comparison of their key elements in an interactive manner. It is continuously updated with AI metrics, measurements, policies and good practices that lead to further updates in the practical guidance for implementation.12

The Recommendation does not stipulate how Adherents should regulate the implementation of the Principles in their own jurisdictions. 

Enforcement powers and penalties 

As the Recommendation is not legally binding, it does not confer enforcement powers or give rise to any penalties for non-compliance. The OECD relies on Adherents to implement the Recommendation and enforce the Principles in their own jurisdictions.

1 https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449
2 OECD Members: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Republic of Türkiye, United Kingdom, United States, and Non-Members: Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Malta, Peru, Romania, Singapore, and Ukraine.
Background - OECD.AI
4 See OECD policy paper
here.
5 "Decisions are adopted by the Council and are legally binding on all Members except those which abstain [whereas] Recommendations are adopted by the Council and are not legally binding [but do] represent a political commitment to the principles they contain and entail an expectation that Adherents will do their best to implement them." (
https://www.oecd.org/legal/legal-instruments.htm.) 
https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449#backgroundInformation
7 OECD Members: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Republic of Türkiye, United Kingdom, United States, and Non-Members: Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Malta, Peru, Romania, Singapore, and Ukraine.
8 "RECOGNISING that given the rapid development and implementation of AI, there is a need for a stable policy environment that promotes a human-centric approach to trustworthy AI, that fosters research, preserves economic incentives to innovate, and that applies to all stakeholders according to their role and the context." (
introduction to the Recommendation).
9 "The OECD Experts Working Group, with members from across sectors and professions, plans to conduct further analysis of the criteria to include in a risk assessment and how best to aggregate these criteria, taking into account that different criteria may be interdependent." (
page 67 of the Framework for the Classification of AI Systems (here)).
10 
See Section 1 (1.1 – 1.5) of the Recommendation.
11 
See Section 2 (2.1 – 2.5) the Recommendation.
12 
The OECD's Policy Observatory is available here. 

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