Regulation Tracker · 20 questions
Horizontal AI statutes that classify or regulate justice and legal uses, such as EU AI Act Annex III point 8.
As of 2026-09-04, 35 of 130 countries and entities have a binding rule for horizontal AI statute, 21 have official guidance, 32 have a proposal, 0 are set by case law, 35 were checked with nothing found and 7 remain unclear. Binding countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan.
Tap or hover a country. Faint land has no record yet. Miller projection; boundaries as published by Natural Earth (India point of view) — see the disclaimer.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly. Austria set up a KI-Servicestelle inside the media and telecoms regulator RTR from 1 Feb 2024 (§ 20c KOG and § 194a TKG, both inserted by BGBl. I Nr. 6/2024) as the national contact and information point supporting AI Act implementation. Full designation of Austrian market-surveillance authorities was not verified in this pass.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly, including Annex III point 8(a) for judicial-support AI. Belgium's designation of national competent authorities and market-surveillance authorities was not verified against an official instrument in this pass.
The EU AI Act applies directly in Bulgaria, including Annex III point 8 justice uses. National implementation is incomplete: BTA reported only fundamental-rights bodies designated and high-risk oversight, sanctions and coordination still pending.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services, issued 10 July 2023 and in force 15 August 2023, require security assessment, algorithm filing, lawful training data and labelling, and are supplemented by the labelling measures in force from 1 September 2025. There is no justice-specific risk tier.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly; a Croatian implementing act designating competent authorities could not be verified, and the data-protection agency's page does not mention one.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly. The Council of Ministers formed a National AI Taskforce in January 2025 and is revising the national AI strategy; a national implementing law and competent-authority designation could not be verified.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. Czechia's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. LOV nr 467 of 14 May 2025 (in force 2 Aug 2025) names Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, Datatilsynet and Domstolsstyrelsen as national competent authorities for the Art. 5 prohibitions and sets inspection and fining powers. A broader AI-loven bill (L 111) was introduced on 18 Feb 2026; adoption not confirmed.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. AKI explains the Regulation and tracks the Digital and AI Omnibus timetable. National supervisory designations not verified.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
AI Act Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI intended to assist judicial authorities in researching/interpreting facts and law, or in applying law, as high-risk. Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027; draft Art. 6 classification guidelines issued 19 May 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. Finland's national supplementary act and designated market-surveillance authorities could not be verified.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly; Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI used by or for judicial authorities to research/interpret facts and law as high-risk. France designated the CNIL as lead AI Act authority and the DGCCRF as market-surveillance coordinator and single point of contact, with about fifteen sectoral regulators (Arcom, ACPR, AMF, ANSM, HAS).
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly (Art. 4 literacy since 2 Feb 2025; Art. 50 transparency from 2 Aug 2026). BRAK §5.3 concludes law-firm tools are normally not high-risk because Annex III point 8(a) targets judicial authorities, not the bar. BRAK called for a broad reading of the Art. 50 transparency duties (19 Mar 2025) and filed a Stellungnahme on the digital/AI omnibus (2 Mar 2026). German designation of national authorities was not verified in this pass.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Law 4961/2022 on emerging technologies requires public-sector algorithmic impact assessments, AI registers and employer transparency. Law 5321/2026 implements Regulation 2024/1689, amends Law 4961/2022 and designates the data-protection authority as principal market-surveillance authority and EETT as notifying authority.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. Hungary's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly, with Annex III point 8(a) covering judicial-support AI; the Law Society guidance carries the Article 4 literacy duty into practice. Ireland's designation of national competent authorities was not verified against an official instrument in this pass.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act, Annex III point 8 on justice, applies directly. Law 132/2025 is the national framework, requires interpretation in conformity with Regulation 2024/1689, designates AgID and the national cybersecurity agency as national authorities, and delegates further decrees.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Act on Promotion of Research, Development and Utilisation of AI-Related Technology, Law No. 53 of 2025, promulgated 4 June 2025 and fully in force 1 September 2025, is a framework statute creating the AI Strategy Headquarters and a basic plan, with no risk classification, penalties or justice-sector provisions.
Kazakhstan adopted Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence on 17 November 2025. It defines AI systems, classifies systems by risk, sets transparency duties and assigns oversight to the AI and Digital Development ministry.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. Latvia's national supplementary law and designated supervisory authorities could not be verified.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. RRT hosts national AI Act supervision alongside DSA and Data Act supervision.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly, including Annex III point 8(a). Luxembourg's designation of national competent and market-surveillance authorities could not be verified against an official instrument in this pass.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The Artificial Intelligence Regulations, Subsidiary Legislation 591.05, in force 10 October 2025 with most operative provisions from 2 August 2026: the Malta Digital Innovation Authority is market-surveillance authority, notifying authority, single contact point and sandbox operator, with appeals to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly, with Annex III point 8(a) covering AI used by or for judicial authorities. The Rechtspraak states it follows the regulation 'als vanzelfsprekend' and excludes high-risk uses until it can meet the requirements. Dutch designation of national competent authorities (AP, RDI) was not verified against an official instrument in this pass.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Ley 31814, published on 5 July 2023, promotes AI under principles of human dignity and rights, names the government digital transformation secretariat as national authority, and declares justice a priority sector. Its implementing decree of September 2025 adds a risk-based approach; its treatment of judicial uses could not be verified.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly, with Annex III point 8(a) covering justice-administration systems from 2 December 2027 after the Digital Omnibus deferral. Poland's national implementing bill designating supervisory authorities was still in the legislative process in 2026.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly and Portugal has no standalone national AI statute. Per Legal 500, ANACOM leads coordination among fourteen sectoral authorities designated under article 77. The CSM Recommendations cite Annex III point 8(a) to classify judicial AI as high risk.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. Romania's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.
Federal Law No. 243-FZ was officially published on 26 July 2026 and, according to secondary reporting, regulates sovereign and national AI models. The 2030 National AI Strategy remains the broader state policy framework.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. Slovakia's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The act implementing Regulation 2024/1689, adopted 23 October 2025 and in force 21 November 2025, designates five market-surveillance authorities: the Information Commissioner for prohibited practices and justice-related high-risk systems, AKOS as single contact point and sandbox operator, the Bank of Slovenia, the Insurance Supervision Agency and the Market Inspectorate.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The Framework Act on AI Development and Trust, Law No. 20676, promulgated 21 January 2025 and in force 22 January 2026, defines high-impact AI by sector and imposes article 31 transparency and article 34 risk-management, explanation and human-oversight duties. Fines are deferred for at least one year and justice uses are not separately enumerated.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The EU AI Act applies directly and AESIA is the supervisory agency. A national law on the good use and governance of AI was approved as a preliminary draft on 11 March 2025 and, per secondary reports, sent to the Cortes as a bill on 26 May 2026; this was not verified against official sources.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act applies directly. SOU 2025:101 'Anpassningar till AI-förordningen' proposes a new Swedish act with eleven market surveillance authorities, PTS leading, and IMY responsible for Annex III points 6, 7 and 8 — the administration-of-justice category. Sanctions could reach public authorities but not courts in their adjudicative activity.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Basic Act, passed 23 December 2025 and promulgated 14 January 2026, has 20 articles: article 5 requires warnings for high-risk applications, article 16 tasks the Ministry of Digital Affairs with an internationally aligned risk-classification framework, and article 19 requires risk assessment before government AI use. No justice-specific tier exists yet.
The Presidentially approved AI Strategy 2025-2028 is a non-binding roadmap. It calls for AI governance, ethical standards, national standards and a legal framework; a separate AI bill is reported as being prepared.
Cameroon’s SNIA, unveiled in July 2025 by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, is a national strategy with governance, data infrastructure, multilingual AI, edge computing, human-capital, innovation and regional-cooperation pillars. No enacted AI law was found.
SNIA 2030, published in 2024 by the Ministry of Digital Transition and Digitalisation, sets investment, inclusion and governance pillars, including standards, supervisory authorities, data privacy and algorithmic-bias safeguards. It is a strategy, not an enacted AI law.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The Guide to Egypt's National AI Governance Framework (ed. 2.0, March 2026, NCAI/ECRAI) sets four risk tiers: prohibited; high-risk (critical infrastructure and biometrics, mandatory dual-check conformity); limited (chatbots, deepfakes); minimal. Full-text search found no reference to justice, courts or the judiciary. A dedicated AI law is reported in draft.
Ethiopia’s National AI Policy was approved in 2024 and sets cross-sector objectives for sectoral integration, data governance/privacy, human capital, infrastructure and ethical accountability. It is a policy, not an enacted AI statute or legal-services rule.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
India has no AI statute. MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines of 5 November 2025 set seven principles and a sectoral do-no-harm approach with no risk classification for justice uses; regulation is left to sectoral bodies, which for courts means the Supreme Court's draft regulations.
The Prime Minister-chaired Supreme Committee for AI reviewed the Iraqi National Strategy for AI in August 2024 and government AI projects. The available source describes a strategy, not an enacted AI law or justice-sector risk classification.
Jordan’s AI Policy 2020 and AI Strategy 2023-2027 are MoDEE-led soft-law instruments covering governance, legislative review, ethics, risk assessment, regulatory sandboxes and public-sector AI projects. They do not classify justice or legal services as high-risk.
The Ministry launched the National AI Strategy and FAIR Guidelines on 10 April 2026 as a comprehensive framework for ethical, transparent and effective AI adoption. They are non-binding and not legal-sector specific.
The 2024 White Paper on Data Governance and AI sets non-binding AI requirements, including human agency, transparency, safety, accountability and data privacy. A 2026-2030 National AI Program was in consultation in 2026.
MTCIT’s 2025 General Policy for Safe and Ethical Use of AI Systems is a national reference framework for public/private AI governance, transparency, fairness, accountability, privacy and human oversight. It does not name courts or legal services.
Rwanda’s National AI Policy is a cross-sector roadmap for responsible AI, trusted data, public-sector transformation, private-sector adoption and AI skills. It is non-binding and does not prescribe legal-practice rules.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute and no draft AI law before the Shura Council. SDAIA's AI Ethics Principles (v1.0, September 2023) apply a risk-based classification to AI systems across sectors, and the AI Adoption Framework (2024, updated 2025) sets maturity levels; both are non-binding.
Senegal’s National AI Strategy and Road Map to 2028, published in 2023, plans trustworthy AI, regulatory sandboxes, high-risk impact assessments, compliance nomenclatures, an AI governance body and national ethics committee. It is non-binding.
Serbia has no dedicated AI law in force. CMS identifies the 2020-2025 and 2025-2030 AI strategies and 2023 Ethical Guidelines as non-binding horizontal policy; no formal public AI-law procedure was reported in February 2026.
The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology’s 2025 Guidelines for AI ethical use provide cross-sector ethical-use guidance; the official PDF endpoint was fetched. No AI Act or justice risk classification was located.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute in force. ETDA issued Thailand's AI Governance Guideline for Executive (2023) and a 2023 study report on drafting AI legislation and assessing its impact. A draft Royal Decree on AI business operations is widely reported but could not be located on ETDA's own pages, so it is not recorded here as proposed.
OECD.AI records Tunisia’s AI Roadmap objectives: AI awareness, skills, infrastructure, data policies, pilot projects, open innovation and research-to-industry links. It is a non-binding roadmap and does not classify courts or legal services.
Ukraine's 2024 White Paper and Roadmap adopt a bottom-up approach: two to three years of voluntary tools, sandboxing and sectoral guidance before a future law analogous to the EU AI Act.
Zambia’s National AI Strategy 2025-2027 sets a national framework for responsible AI, policy and regulation, skills, data ecosystems, sectoral adoption, a National AI Council and technical working groups. It is not a binding legal-practice rule.
OECD.AI describes Zimbabwe’s National AI Strategy 2026-2030 as a framework for AI governance, ethics, regulatory safeguards, public services and an AI Strategy Implementation Office. It is strategy guidance, not a court/legal-profession rule.
A May 2026 Draft Law On Artificial Intelligence was reported in public consultation and aligned to the EU AI Act; CMS earlier recorded no in-force standalone AI law.
Digital Policy Alert reports that Algeria’s Scientific Council for AI announced adoption of a draft National AI Strategy on 8 December 2024, with six pillars and recommended actions. No enacted AI law or justice risk classification was located.
Armenia signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 27 January 2026. No ratification, domestic AI law, AI regulator or adopted risk-classification framework was located.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute. DISR consulted in September 2024 on mandatory guardrails for AI in high-risk settings alongside a Voluntary AI Safety Standard; nothing had been legislated as at 4 September 2026. Justice and legal services are not separately risk-classified in Australian law.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
A 38-article standalone AI bill approved by the Shura Council in April 2024 would create a National Centre for Artificial Intelligence under the Ministry of Interior with licensing, civil and criminal liability and penalties up to ten years. The government objected in November 2024, preferring a regulatory sandbox; not enacted.
Belarus.by reported that government bodies mandated development of AI legislation for the 2026 legislative agenda, with an AI concept, strategy and technical committee to be prepared. No enacted AI law was found.
AAGI reports Botswana’s AI Policy is in final development under the Ministry of Communications and Innovation, following UNESCO readiness work. No final policy, AI Act or justice-sector risk classification was located.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Bill 2338/2023, the legal framework for AI, is risk-based and modelled on the EU AI Act. It was approved by the Senate on 10 December 2024 and sent to the Chamber of Deputies on 17 March 2025, where a special committee holds it; a plenary vote scheduled for May 2026 had not produced final approval.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Bill 16821-19, introduced by executive message and merged with an earlier bill, regulates AI systems by risk tiers and creates a Technical Advisory Council. It was approved by the Chamber of Deputies and has been in the Senate's Future Challenges Committee since October 2025.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
Bill 043/2025 in the Senate proposed a national AI supervisory authority and risk tiers but was archived at the end of the legislature; the government re-filed substantially the same text as bill 025/2026 in August 2026.
Georgia signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 5 September 2024. No domestic AI law, national AI strategy, regulator or implementation bill was located as of 4 September 2026.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute. President Mahama launched Ghana's first National AI Strategy on 24 Apr 2026, targeting education, healthcare, agriculture, finance and public service delivery; justice, courts and legal services are not named. It proposes a Responsible AI Authority within a year.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Iceland is an EEA state, not an EU member. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 binds Iceland only once incorporated into the EEA Agreement by an EEA Joint Committee decision and transposed. No incorporation decision could be verified as of 4 September 2026; the EFTA EEA-Lex record was unreachable.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
Circular Letter of the Minister of Communication and Informatics No. 9 of 2023 on AI ethics (19 December 2023) is the only in-force instrument: nine ethical values addressed to AI businesses and electronic system operators, with no mention of courts or legal services. Two draft Presidential Regulations awaited signature in September 2026.
International bodies · verified 2026-09-04
The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI opened for signature in Vilnius on 5 September 2024; the Treaty Office chart of 3 September 2026 shows 20 signatures without ratification and one ratification by the EU, so it is not in force. The OECD AI Recommendation is non-binding.
Press sources report a National AI Bill/Plan and approval of a National AI Organisation under presidential supervision in 2025; the organisation must draft a statute for Cabinet. No justice/legal-services risk classification was located.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
The Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 (Senate Bills No. 4 of 2025), published 19 Feb 2026, creates an Artificial Intelligence Commissioner and four risk tiers; high risk covers healthcare, education, agriculture, finance, security, employment and public administration, but does not name courts, justice or legal services. Kenya's AI Strategy 2025-2030 (27 Mar 2025) is non-binding.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
Kuwait has no AI statute and no risk-classification instrument. A draft National AI Strategy 2025-2028 aligned with Vision 2035 is public but non-binding and not adopted; CITRA announced an action-oriented approach to AI governance in February 2025 without issuing a rule.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The National AI Office and Ministry of Digital ran a public consultation on a proposed AI Governance Bill from 10 July to 1 August 2026, at pre-drafting stage; no bill has been introduced. Existing soft law: the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (MOSTI, 2024) and the National AI Action Plan 2026-2030. Justice uses are not separately risk-classified.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute is in force. A Senate draft General Law to Regulate and Promote AI was not put to a vote before the ordinary period closed in April 2026; a National Law to Regulate the Use of AI was introduced on 11 February 2026 and a Federal Law for the Ethical, Sovereign and Inclusive Development of AI in the Chamber of Deputies on 24 July 2026. None classifies justice-sector uses.
Montenegro lacks specific AI law or strategy in force. A National AI Strategy 2026-2030 is being developed by a Ministry of Public Administration working group with UNDP support.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
A framework law known as 'Digital X.0', covering AI, data governance, digital identity and interoperability, was presented by the Minister Delegate for Digital Transition in November 2025 and is with the Secretariat General of the Government. No official text is public and no justice-sector classification is reported.
LEX Africa reports Decree No. 14/2026 created CNIA as a technical advisory body and that public consultation on Mozambique’s National AI Strategy continued until 4 June 2026. No AI statute or risk-classification rule was located.
Public reports quoting the National Assembly Speaker describe a Draft AI Bill, National AI Strategy, proposed AI Council and technical working groups. No enacted AI law, final strategy text or justice/legal-services classification was located.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (FMCIDE/NITDA-NCAIR, Aug 2024) is still marked draft and does not mention the judiciary or legal sector. Bills before the National Assembly include the National AI Commission (Establishment) Bill and the National Digital Economy and E-Governance Bill; none classifies justice uses.
North Macedonia signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 8 May 2026. CMS reported no dedicated AI law, official AI policy or forthcoming AI legislation in force domestically.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
The AI Act is not yet Norwegian law. The Ministry of Digitalisation consulted on a KI-lov incorporating Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 into Norwegian law, consultation closing 30 September 2025, with entry into force targeted for late summer 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No enacted AI statute. Senate Bill No. 25 of the 20th Congress (Cayetano) proposes risk-based AI regulation modelled on the EU AI Act; House Bill No. 3462 (Pleyto) would create a Philippine Artificial Intelligence Commission. Under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution, regulation of the Bench and Bar is the Supreme Court's alone.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
Switzerland will not transpose the EU AI Act. On 12 Feb 2025, alongside BAKOM's regulatory Auslegeordnung, the Federal Council decided to bring the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention into Swiss law, to make statutory changes sector-specifically with any cross-cutting rules confined to fundamental-rights areas such as data protection, and to add non-binding measures. The EJPD, with UVEK and EDA, must produce a consultation draft by the end of 2026. The SAV notes the EU AI Act still reaches Swiss providers and users via the effects principle.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
The Artificial Intelligence Bill submitted to the Grand National Assembly on 25 Jun 2024 (first signatory Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu) remains 'in committee' before the Industry, Trade, Energy, Natural Resources, Information and Technology Committee, with the Justice Committee as secondary. The TBMM AI Research Commission's Report No. 260 (March 2026) recommends a framework AI law and a Turkish AI Authority.
The Ministry of ICT reported in March 2025 that Uganda was developing AI governance, with a decision expected by end-2025 on either a formal AI policy or sector-driven approach. No enacted AI statute or justice classification was found.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
A draft Law on Artificial Intelligence is under discussion, and the Supreme People's Court journal analyses its damages and liability provisions, but the draft text and its legislative status were not opened. Decision 1671/QD-TTg of 28 August 2026 approves the national AI strategy to 2030 with a vision to 2045, superseding Decision 127/QD-TTg.
No countries in this status.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
CMS reported no dedicated AI law, no official AI guidance and no forthcoming AI-specific legislation. AI appears only briefly in entity development strategies; Bosnia and Herzegovina seeks broader EU alignment.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (part of Bill C-27) died when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025 and has not been reintroduced. The national strategy AI for All, launched 4 June 2026, relies on sectoral and privacy legislation rather than a horizontal AI statute; justice uses are not risk-classified.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute or filed bill. An EU mission in June 2026 is assisting the three branches to prepare a draft bill covering AI and AI-enabled crime. No bill was found as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute and no risk classification of justice uses. The Digital Policy Office's Hong Kong Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline (April 2025, updated December 2025) is a voluntary cross-sector framework for developers and deployers and forms part of the Ethical AI Framework.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute or risk-classification law. Policy only: the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology / Ministry of Justice AI regulation and ethics policy (Dec 2023) favours sector-specific regulation, and Government Resolution 4255 of 16 Jun 2026 approved a national AI plan focused on compute, talent and standards rather than a justice-sector risk tier.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
The Lebanese University Faculty of Law’s 2025 AI governance and ethics guidelines propose principles and a national AI authority, but no government AI strategy, bill, law or risk-classification instrument was located.
No Macao AI Act-style statute or justice/legal risk classification was verified; mainland China AI measures were not treated as Macao law.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute. The National AI Policy 2025 contains no provision on AI in the judiciary.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute and no draft AI law. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, implemented through the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, takes a non-binding, risk-based and sector-specific approach.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute and no risk classification of justice or legal uses. Singapore regulates AI through existing law plus voluntary frameworks and sectoral advisory guidelines such as the PDPC's 2024 AI advisory guidelines.
Africa · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute. The Draft South Africa National AI Policy (General Notice 3880, Government Gazette 54477, 10 April 2026) was withdrawn in its entirety by Notice 3978 of 2026 (Gazette 54840, 12 June 2026, signed 4 June 2026) after at least six of its 67 academic citations were found to be fabricated by AI.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute, bill or risk classification found as of 4 September 2026.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
Middle East · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute. The UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI (July 2024) is expressly a non-binding ethical framework; the National AI Strategy 2031 sets direction only.
Europe · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute; the EU AI Act reaches UK firms only when output is used in the EU. The UK is on the EU's adequacy list, which is why Austrian and German bar guidance names the UK as an acceptable hosting location for legal AI providers.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No federal AI statute and no risk classification of justice-sector uses. The Executive Order of 11 December 2025, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, seeks to preempt state AI laws and created a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force (announced 9 Jan 2026); it imposes no obligations on legal practice.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No AI statute. Ley 20.212 of 6 November 2023, article 74, mandates the e-government agency to design a national data and AI strategy, and a 2020 AI strategy for digital government exists. No bill classifying legal uses was found as of 4 September 2026.
The verified presidential AI programme promotes AI deployment, but no AI Act-style statute or justice/legal risk classification was found.
No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute is in force. Several bills have been introduced in Congress but none could be verified within the research window.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
The National AI Policy 2026 reportedly directs the Ministry of Law to draft a comprehensive AI Act by 2028; the policy text could not be opened from an official source. No AI statute is in force.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
AI bills have been reported in the Legislative Assembly but none could be verified against official records in this research window; no statute is in force.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
AI-law proposals have circulated in the National Assembly but their status could not be verified against official records in this research window.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
No horizontal AI statute and no risk classification of justice uses. New Zealand's stated approach is to rely on existing law with a light-touch national AI strategy, but the MBIE AI policy page could not be opened before the search budget was exhausted, so the current strategy title and date are not verified here.
Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04
A federal National AI Policy was reported approved in 2025 but could not be verified from an official source within the research budget; no AI statute or risk classification applies to courts.
Americas · verified 2026-09-04
AI bills have been reported in the National Assembly but could not be verified against official records in this research window; no statute is confirmed in force.
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Horizontal AI statute" by country, https://safelegalai.com/regulation/category/ai-act-horizontal (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
China
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
European Union
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Taiwan
Azerbaijan
Cameroon
Côte d'Ivoire
Egypt
Ethiopia
India
Iraq
Jordan
Mauritius
Moldova
Oman
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Tanzania
Thailand
Tunisia
Ukraine
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Albania
Algeria
Armenia
Australia
Bahrain
Belarus
Botswana
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Georgia
Ghana
Iceland
Indonesia
International bodies
Iran
Kenya
Kuwait
Malaysia
Mexico
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Norway
Philippines
Switzerland
Türkiye
Uganda
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brunei
Cambodia
Canada
Cuba
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Hong Kong SAR
Israel
Jamaica
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Lebanon
Macao
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
Nicaragua
Paraguay
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Singapore
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Argentina
Bangladesh
Costa Rica
Ecuador
New Zealand
Pakistan
Panama