Law written for artificial intelligence: practices banned outright, duties to tell people when they are dealing with an AI system or AI-generated content, disclosure of training data, risk controls for high-risk uses, and sector rules such as those on AI in hiring. In practice, it applies when your product builds, fine-tunes or deploys a model, runs a chatbot, or generates text, images or audio.
Every AI law instrument LexLint holds,
grouped by the jurisdiction that made it. Choose which stages of law to show:
the map, the counts and the tables all answer to that choice. To see
every area of law, follow Law in the breadcrumb above.
1
5
10
20+
instruments shown
law on file, none at these stages
tracked, no law on file
not tracked
The United States is drawn as its states and territories, and Canada as its provinces and territories; their federal instruments are row groups in Countries below.
Draft Act on Organisation of Public Administration in the Field of Artificial IntelligenceIntegrated draft act (Government material UV-23232/2026, delivered to the National Council of the Slovak Republic on as parliamentary print 1447; earlier registered with the Legislative Council of the Government as LRV-22028/2026 on ; first submitted by MIRRI for inter-departmental comment on ); would amend Act 575/2001 Coll. and related acts
Norwegian Artificial Intelligence Act (KI-loven)Proposed Act on Artificial Intelligence (KI-loven), not yet enacted; Stortinget EU/EØS-nytt briefing of ; Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance press releases of 4 August and
Synthetically Generated Information Labelling Duty for IntermediariesInformation Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, rule 3(3), as inserted by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 (G.S.R. 120(E), dated )
Ethics Rules for creating, deploying and using AI-based solutionsOrder No. 284-mh of the Minister of Digital Technologies of the Republic of Uzbekistan of , registered with the Ministry of Justice on under No. 3787 (Ethics Rules for creating, deploying and using solutions based on artificial intelligence)
Artificial Intelligence Basic Act (人工智慧基本法)Artificial Intelligence Basic Act (人工智慧基本法), Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan), pcode H0160093, Arts. 1-20
in force
United States: states, territories and cities237 in 60 jurisdictions
Law made below the national level, binding inside it. The slug beside each name says which tier it is.
AI disclosure in political advertising and electoral communicationsLey Núm. 105 de 10 de junio de 2026 (P. del S. 101), enmendando los Artículos 7.007 y 7.009 de la Ley 222-2011 (Ley para la Fiscalización de las Campañas Políticas) y el Artículo 12.7 de la Ley 58-2020 (Código Electoral de Puerto Rico de 2020)
Employment Standards Act, 2000, use of artificial intelligence in job postingsEmployment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, ss. 8.1, 8.4, as enacted by the Working for Workers Four Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 3, Sched. 2, s. 2(1), and Ontario Regulation 476/24 (Rules and Exemptions re Job Postings), ss. 1, 2(1)
The stages are the in-force tag's. Each filter is one of the
states the tag names across lexlint.io, in its words (in force, not yet in
force, blocked by a court, proposed, no longer in force, and never in force),
and each filter's label wears that tag's mark. In the tables a law in force
is unmarked, its date in plain text, and every other law wears the same tag
the rest of lexlint.io draws: highlighted, boxed, dotted, or struck with its
reason underlined. A withdrawn bill has a filter of its own, never in force:
the /law/<jurisdiction> docket leaves it out, and "no
longer in force" would be false of a law that never was.
Blocked by a court has its own filter. A law a court has blocked is
neither in force nor gone: an injunction can be lifted on appeal, and the
duty with it. Pooled with a repeal it would hide a count that reads as a
signal, how contested a jurisdictional hook is. It is off by default, with
the proposals and the laws that have ended.
One date column, and it says what kind of date it is. The date is
the day the law started or starts to bind: the earlier of a published
start date and the instrument's own date. Neither source is reliably
the start, and the earlier one cannot make a law look newer than it is. The
column draws the in-force tag, so a bare date never stands beside a law that
has stopped: a law in force reads "since" its date, a law not yet in force
is highlighted with its date and how far off it is, a law a court has
blocked is boxed in red, and an ended law has its dates struck and its
reason underlined. Nothing is inferred from our own review date.
The map is the table. Its fill is the count of instruments at the
stages you chose, binned on the same RAMP_BINS edges
/law/map uses, and it redraws on
every change. Point at, click, or tab to a jurisdiction for what applies there,
every stage it holds shown even when your filter is excluding it.
Three ways of showing nothing, and they are different claims. A
jurisdiction washed pale holds AI law your filter is excluding,
so widening the filter brings it back. A hatched jurisdiction is one we track
and hold no AI law for at all: that is a statement about our
research, not about the law. A white shape has no jurisdiction record for this topic
at all. Only the first of the three moves when you change the filter; the
other two are facts about us and hold still.
Nothing here needs the script. The default resultset is in the
HTML: counts, tally, map fills and the hidden rows are all rendered at
build. The script recomputes them when a box changes and does nothing else,
which is what lets this page ship under script-src 'self' and
be read whole by a crawler.
Every instrument here links its own note page, which carries
the primary source and the date it was read. This is a research index, not
legal advice.
