AI Regulation Around the World

How the World Is Learning to Regulate AI

AI regulation is one of those topics that sounds dry until you realize it determines what you can and can’t build, where you can sell it, and what happens when something goes wrong. I started tracking this space because I kept running into questions about compliance while working on AI projects, and I realized there was no single place that laid out how different countries were approaching the problem.

What I found was fascinating: every major economy is tackling AI governance differently, and those differences reflect deep cultural and political values. Some countries want strict rules up front. Others prefer to let the technology develop and regulate later. A few are trying to split the difference. Since I first published this series in early 2025, the landscape has shifted substantially. Comprehensive AI legislation has become the norm rather than the exception, and several of the frameworks I originally covered have moved from proposals to enforceable law.

The Global Landscape

The best place to start is the comparative overview, which maps out the major regulatory approaches side by side. It covers the spectrum from prescriptive frameworks to voluntary guidelines, and it gives you a sense of where the global consensus is heading (spoiler: there isn’t much consensus yet).

Europe and the Risk-Based Approach

The EU got there first with the AI Act, the most comprehensive AI regulation on the books. It categorizes AI systems by risk level and imposes requirements accordingly. If you’re building anything that touches the European market, this is mandatory reading. The framework is detailed, sometimes frustratingly so, but it’s setting the template that other jurisdictions are watching closely.

Asia-Pacific Perspectives

Asia offers a range of approaches that reflect different priorities. China’s regulatory framework emphasizes social stability and state oversight, with specific rules for generative AI, recommendation algorithms, and deepfakes. It’s more prescriptive than most Western frameworks in some areas and less so in others.

Japan enacted its first AI law in May 2025, the AI Promotion Act, though it remains deliberately light-touch and prioritizes becoming the “most AI-friendly country.” South Korea’s AI Basic Act is newer and more comprehensive, establishing a detailed classification system and enforcement mechanisms.

India is still the most hands-off, but that’s changing. The government released AI Governance Guidelines in late 2025, and the amended IT Rules 2026 introduced mandatory AI content labeling. India’s purely non-regulatory era appears to be winding down.

The Anglo-American Approach

The UK’s pro-innovation framework represents a middle path, relying on existing sector regulators rather than creating new AI-specific rules. It’s pragmatic and flexible, though critics worry it lacks teeth.

The US approach has become a battleground. The Trump administration is actively pushing back against state AI laws through executive orders and a new AI Litigation Task Force, while California, Colorado, and Illinois have all brought enforceable AI legislation into effect. There’s still no federal AI law, but the tension between federal deregulation and state-level action is the story of 2026.

Why This Matters for Builders

If you’re building AI systems, the takeaway from this series is straightforward: think about regulation early. It’s much easier to design compliant systems from the start than to retrofit them later. And if you’re operating globally, you need to understand these different frameworks because a system that’s perfectly legal in one jurisdiction might be banned in another.

Changelog

• February 2026: Updated country descriptions across the guide to reflect developments through early 2026, including Japan’s AI Promotion Act, India’s governance guidelines and IT Rules, the US federal-state tension, and South Korea’s AI Basic Act taking effect.