AI Regulations Around the World: A Jurisdiction Map

Why a fragmented AI regulatory landscape matters

There is no single “AI law.” A compliance team building or deploying a frontier AI model today has to track a patchwork of binding statutes, voluntary codes, and international declarations that overlap in subject matter but differ — often sharply — in who they cover, what they require, and when they bite. The European Union regulates by risk category. California and New York regulate by compute threshold. Colorado regulates by use case. Texas regulates by intent. None of these frameworks defer to each other, and several are moving targets: Colorado’s original AI Act was repealed and reenacted before it ever took effect, and the EU AI Act’s high-risk deadlines have already been amended once by the 2026 AI Omnibus.

This page is a map, not a manual. Each section below covers one jurisdiction or coordination body in a few sentences — scope, who it applies to, and the effective date where one exists — and links out to CASRAI’s deep-dive guide or comparison for the full detail. If you’re building a compliance program that has to satisfy more than one of these at once, start with the jurisdiction closest to a binding deadline and work outward.

European Union

The EU AI Act is the most comprehensive framework in force, regulating AI systems by risk tier rather than by developer size or compute. Two live compliance tracks matter most right now: the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice, a voluntary-but-favored mechanism that creates a presumption of conformity under Article 53(4) for signatories, and the high-risk system obligations, whose deadlines were pushed by the 2026 AI Omnibus to 2 December 2027 (Annex III systems) and 2 August 2028 (Annex I systems).

• GPAI Code of Practice, its three chapters, and which labs signed: The EU AI Act GPAI Code of Practice
• Deadline-by-deadline compliance checklist for high-risk systems: EU AI Act High-Risk System Compliance Checklist
• How the EU’s disclosure-based model differs from California’s binding-framework model: EU AI Act vs California SB 53

United States — federal

There is no binding federal AI statute. The closest thing to a federal position is the White House’s 2022 Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights — five non-binding principles for automated systems that carry no enforcement mechanism of their own, but that shaped the language later state laws borrowed. In the absence of federal legislation, the state laws below are where the actual binding obligations sit.

• What the Blueprint says, and its non-binding status relative to state law: The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights

United States — states

Five states have live or imminent AI-specific statutes, and no two use the same trigger. California and New York regulate frontier models by compute threshold; Colorado regulates any automated system, however small, that materially influences a consequential decision about a person; Texas bans specific uses by intent rather than regulating model scale or decision type; Utah is narrower still, largely a disclosure requirement.

• Side-by-side on triggers, requirements, and dates: California SB 53 vs Colorado AI Act vs New York RAISE Act
• What SB 53 actually requires of accountable decision-makers: Accountable Decision-Makers Under SB 53
• New York’s tighter 72-hour incident-reporting window compared to SB 53’s 15 days: New York RAISE Act: What It Requires
• Colorado’s repeal-and-reenactment history and the real 2027 enforcement date: The Colorado AI Act
• Texas’s intent-based bans versus Colorado’s use-case model: The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA)
• Utah’s narrower, disclosure-focused scope: The Utah AI Policy Act

China

China’s Cyberspace Administration (CAC), jointly with six other central agencies, issued the Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services on July 10, 2023, effective August 15, 2023. It applies to organizations and individuals that use generative AI to provide public-facing content-generating services — text, images, audio, video — within China, and it explicitly excludes R&D that isn’t offered as a public service. It’s a narrower, service-facing rule rather than a general-purpose AI-safety statute, which is why it sits alongside rather than in place of China’s broader cybersecurity and data-export regime. CASRAI does not yet have a dedicated deep-dive guide on this framework; this summary is sourced directly from CAC’s own published notice.

International coordination

Outside binding national law, a parallel track of summits, voluntary pledges, and coordination bodies has emerged since the first AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park in November 2023. None of these are enforceable in the way a statute is, but several — especially the Seoul Commitments — are being used as the de facto baseline that binding laws like SB 53 and the RAISE Act now reference.

• The independent, Bengio-chaired scientific baseline commissioned after Bletchley: International AI Safety Report 2026
• How the first two summit outputs differ — Bletchley’s single joint declaration versus Seoul’s split into a government declaration and a separate industry-commitments text: Bletchley Declaration vs Seoul Declaration
• The 20 signatories to the voluntary industry pledge and what each committed to: Seoul Frontier AI Safety Commitments
• The body coordinating national AI safety institutes (CAISI, UK AISI, and others), now renamed NAAIMES: The International AI Safety Institute Network

How CASRAI tracks ongoing changes

This landscape moves fast enough that any static snapshot goes stale within months — Colorado’s law was rewritten before taking effect, and the EU’s high-risk deadlines have already shifted once. CASRAI’s frontier-ai-safety content cluster follows each jurisdiction’s deep dive individually rather than trying to keep one page current on everything, and NIKOLAI, CASRAI’s structured-metadata initiative, is building out elements like accountable decision-makers (N9) that map directly onto what these statutes require in practice. Bookmark the jurisdiction pages linked above rather than this overview if you need to track a specific deadline — they’re the ones that get updated when a law changes.