AI Regulation Reference
AI Law Tracker
35 laws tracked across the EU, US federal government, US states, UK, and international bodies — filtered and explained for small teams.
Showing 9 of 35 laws
A voluntary framework from the National Institute of Standards and Technology helping organizations manage AI risks. Organized around four functions: Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage. Released January 26, 2023; NIST added a Generative AI Profile (NIST-AI-600-1) on July 26, 2024, and says AI RMF 1.0 is being revised as part of the White House AI Action Plan. Texas TRAIGA says a defendant may not be found liable for a violation it discovers through an internal review process while substantially complying with the most recent NIST Generative AI Profile or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework.
Effective: January 26, 2023
Signed January 23, 2025, three days after Executive Order 14148 revoked the Biden AI order (EO 14110). It directs officials to review every action taken under the revoked EO 14110 and to suspend, revise or rescind those that present obstacles to US AI dominance, and orders an AI action plan within 180 days. A follow-on order signed December 11, 2025, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, directs federal agencies to challenge or deter state AI laws, including through an AI Litigation Task Force.
Effective: January 23, 2025
Executive Order 14434, signed September 29, 2026 and published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2026, directs federal executive departments and agencies to use the terms Super Intelligence and SI instead of artificial intelligence and AI in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports and policy documents. For now the new term is defined by reference to the existing statutory definition of artificial intelligence in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). Within 60 days the assistant to the president for science and technology must submit proposed legislative language for a federal definition of Super Intelligence, including whether it should modify or supersede the current legal definition of AI. Previously issued regulations, contracts and grants do not have to be rewritten. The order creates no enforceable rights.
Effective: September 29, 2026
A non-binding White House document, released March 20, 2026, that sets out legislative recommendations for Congress on federal AI policy. Its priorities include protecting children and empowering parents, preempting unduly burdensome state AI regulation, channeling oversight through existing sector-specific agencies and industry-led standards, community and infrastructure impacts, intellectual property, free speech, innovation and workforce readiness. It does not create legal obligations.
The Federal Trade Commission applies existing consumer protection law, the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts, to AI products and services. Operation AI Comply (September 2024) brought five actions over deceptive AI product claims, an AI review generator, and AI-themed income schemes. The posture has since shifted: in December 2025 the FTC set aside its 2024 Rytr order, saying the complaint did not meet FTC Act requirements and the order unduly burdened AI innovation. Deceptive AI claims that harm consumers remain enforceable.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued technical assistance on May 18, 2023 explaining how Title VII disparate impact analysis applies to software, algorithms and AI used in hiring, promotion and performance management. The EEOC removed its AI guidance documents from its website on January 27, 2025. Technical assistance was never law: Title VII itself still applies. Executive Order 14281 (April 23, 2025) tells federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of disparate-impact liability, naming the Title VII provision, and told the EEOC chair to review pending matters that rely on that theory. On June 4, 2026 the EEOC rescinded its 2024-2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan and replaced it with a National Enforcement Plan for fiscal years 2025-2029, which says the agency will eliminate disparate impact theories in investigations to the maximum degree possible and will not commence, develop, or continue litigation advancing disparate impact claims. These change federal enforcement priorities, not the statute: Title VII still contains its disparate-impact section (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k)). Correction, October 21, 2026: an earlier version of this entry said the 2024-2028 Strategic Enforcement Plan still listed technology-related discrimination as a priority; that plan was rescinded in June 2026.
In 2022 the CFPB issued Circular 2022-03, saying lenders must give specific, accurate reasons for adverse action even when a complex algorithm made the decision. The CFPB withdrew that circular on May 12, 2025, along with many other guidance documents. The underlying rule still applies: ECOA and Regulation B require specific reasons in an adverse action notice, so 'the model said no' is not enough. Separately, a final rule published April 22, 2026 and effective July 21, 2026 amended Regulation B to provide that ECOA does not authorize disparate-impact liability.
The FDA regulates AI and machine learning software that meets the definition of a medical device (Software as a Medical Device, or SaMD). Its January 2021 AI/ML action plan led to guidance on pre-market review and on predetermined change control plans (PCCPs). The FDA finalized its PCCP guidance for AI-enabled device software functions on December 4, 2024 and re-issued it on August 18, 2025, letting manufacturers pre-authorize planned modifications as part of a 510(k), De Novo or PMA submission instead of filing a new one for each change. On August 18, 2026 the FDA also published a discussion paper on regulating generative AI-enabled devices, with comments due by October 19, 2026 under docket FDA-2026-N-7874; the paper is not draft or final guidance. The FDA says it had authorized over 1,600 AI-enabled devices as of September 2026.
Effective: January 12, 2021
The SEC has no AI-specific disclosure rule. It applies existing antifraud, disclosure and marketing rules to AI claims and has brought 'AI washing' cases: on March 18, 2024 it charged two investment advisers, Delphia (USA) Inc. (a $225,000 penalty) and Global Predictions Inc. ($175,000), for false statements about their use of AI, and on January 14, 2025 it announced settled charges against Presto Automation Inc., a restaurant-technology company, for misleading statements about an AI product. Public companies must accurately disclose material AI risks and capabilities under existing rules.
Status guide
Unfamiliar terms?
Conformity assessment, GPAI model, high-risk AI — all defined in plain English.
Browse the glossary →