Our thinking

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker

What's inside

Keeping track of AI regulatory developments around the world.

The global dash to regulate AI

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made enormous strides in recent years and has increasingly moved into the public consciousness.

Increases in computational power, coupled with advances in machine learning, have fueled the rapid rise of AI. This has brought enormous opportunities, as new AI applications have given rise to new ways of doing business. It has also brought potential risks, from unintended impacts on individuals (e.g., AI errors harming an individual's credit score or public reputation) to the risk of misuse of AI by malicious third parties (e.g., by manipulating AI systems to produce inaccurate or misleading output, or by using AI to create deepfakes).

Governments and regulatory bodies around the world have had to act quickly to try to ensure that their regulatory frameworks do not become obsolete. In addition, international organizations such as the G7, the UN, the Council of Europe and the OECD have responded to this technological shift by issuing their own AI frameworks. But they are all scrambling to stay abreast of technological developments, and already there are signs that emerging efforts to regulate AI will struggle to keep pace. In an effort to introduce some degree of international consensus, the UK government organized the first global AI Safety Summit in November 2023, with the aim of encouraging the safe and responsible development of AI around the world. 

Most jurisdictions have sought to strike a balance between encouraging AI innovation and investment, while at the same time attempting to create rules to protect against possible harms. However, jurisdictions around the world have taken substantially different approaches to achieving these goals, which has in turn increased the risk that businesses face from a fragmented and inconsistent AI regulatory environment. Nevertheless, certain trends are becoming clearer at this stage:

  1. "AI" means different things in different jurisdictions: One of the foundational challenges that any international business faces when designing an AI regulatory compliance strategy is figuring out what constitutes "AI." Unfortunately, the definition of AI varies from one jurisdiction to the next. For example, the EU AI Act adopts a definition of "AI systems" that is based on (but is not identical to) the OECD's definition, and which leaves room for substantial doubt due to its uncertain wording. Canada has proposed a similar, though more concise, definition. Various US states have proposed their own definitions, which differ from one another. And many jurisdictions (e.g., the UK, Israel, China, and Japan) do not currently provide a comprehensive definition of AI. Because several of the proposed AI regulations have extraterritorial effect (meaning more than one AI regulation may apply simultaneously), international businesses may be forced to adopt a "highest common denominator" approach to identifying AI based on the strictest applicable standard.
  2. Emerging AI regulations come in different forms: The various emerging AI regulations have no consistent legal form – some are statutes, some are executive orders, some are expansions of existing regulatory frameworks, and so on. The EU AI Act is a "Regulation" (which means that most of it will apply directly in all EU Member States, without the need for national implementation in most cases). The UK has taken a different approach, declining to legislate at this early stage in the development of AI, and instead choosing to task existing UK regulators with the responsibility of interpreting and applying five AI principles in their respective spheres. In the US, there is a mix of White House Executive Orders, federal and state initiatives, and actions by existing regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. As a result, the types of compliance obligations that international businesses face are likely to be materially different from one jurisdiction to the next. Many other jurisdictions have yet to decide whether they will issue sector-specific or generally applicable rules and have yet to decide between creating new regulators or expanding the roles of existing regulators, making it challenging for businesses to anticipate what form their AI regulatory relationships will take in the long term.
  3. Emerging AI regulations have different conceptual approaches: The next difficulty is the lack of a consistent conceptual approach among emerging AI regulations around the world – some are legally binding while others are not, some are sector-specific while others apply across all sectors, some will be enforced by regulators while others are merely guidelines or recommendations, and so on. As noted above, the UK approach is to use existing regulators to implement five AI principles, but with no new explicit legal obligations. This has the advantage of meaning that businesses will deal with AI regulators with whom they are already familiar but has the disadvantage that different UK regulators may interpret these principles differently in their respective spheres. The EU AI Act is cross-sectoral and creates new regulatory and enforcement powers for existing bodies, including the European Commission, and also creates entirely new bodies such as the AI Board and the AI Office, while leaving EU Member States to appoint their own AI regulators tasked with enforcing the EU AI Act. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Department of Justice issued a joint statement clarifying that their existing authority covers AI, while various state regulators are also likely to have competence to regulate AI. International organizations including the OECD, the UN, and the G7 have issued AI principles, but these impose no legal obligations on businesses. In principle, these initiatives encourage consistency across members of each organization, but in practice this does not seem to have worked.
  4. Flexibility is a double-edged sword: In an effort to create AI regulations that can adapt to technological advances that have not yet been anticipated, many jurisdictions have sought to include substantial flexibility in those regulations, either by using deliberately high-level wording and policies, or by allowing for future interpretation and application by courts and regulators. This has the obvious advantage of prolonging the lifespan of such regulations by allowing them to be adapted to future technologies. However, it also creates the disadvantage of uncertainty because it leaves businesses uncertain of how their compliance obligations will be interpreted in the future. This is likely to mean that it is harder for businesses to know whether their planned implementations of AI will be lawful in the medium-to-long term and may make it harder to attract long-term AI investment in those jurisdictions.
  5. The overlap between AI regulation and other areas of law is complex: A substantial number of laws that are not directly focused on AI nevertheless apply to AI by association within their respective spheres, meaning that any use of AI will often trigger compliance issues and legal challenges even where there is not (yet) any enforceable AI-specific law. These areas of overlap include: IP (e.g., IP infringement issues with respect to AI model training data, and questions about copyright and patentability of AI-assisted inventions); antitrust; data protection (which adds restrictions to processing of personal data, and in some cases imposes special compliance obligations for processing carried out by automated means, including by AI); M&A (where AI innovation is driving dealmaking in many markets); financial regulation (where financial regulatory requirements may limit the ways in which AI can lawfully be deployed); litigation; digital infrastructure; securities; global trade; foreign direct investment; mining & metals; and so on. This overlap will mean that many businesses need to understand not just AI regulations in general, but also any rules that affect the use of AI in the context of the relevant sector or business activity.

Businesses in almost all sectors need to keep a close eye on these developments to ensure that they are aware of the AI regulations and forthcoming trends, in order to identify new opportunities and new potential business risks. But even at this early stage, the inconsistent approaches each jurisdiction has taken to the core questions of how to regulate AI is clear. As a result, it appears that international businesses may face substantially different AI regulatory compliance challenges in different parts of the world. To that end, this AI Tracker is designed to provide businesses with an understanding of the state of play of AI regulations in the core markets in which they operate. It provides analysis of the approach that each jurisdiction has taken to AI regulation and provides helpful commentary on the likely direction of travel.

Because global AI regulations remain in a constant state of flux, this AI Tracker will develop over time, adding updates and new jurisdictions when appropriate. Stay tuned, as we continue to provide insights to help businesses navigate these ever-evolving issues.

Articles

Australia

Voluntary AI Ethics Principles guide responsible AI development in Australia, with potential reforms under consideration.

Australia

Brazil

The enactment of Brazil's proposed AI Regulation remains uncertain with compliance requirements pending review.

Sao Paulo

Canada

AIDA expected to regulate AI at the federal level in Canada but provincial legislatures have yet to be introduced.

Canada

China

The Interim AI Measures is China's first specific, administrative regulation on the management of generative AI services.

China

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is developing a new Convention on AI to safeguard human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the digital space covering governance, accountability and risk assessment.

European Union

Czech Republic

The successful implementation of the EU AI Act into national law is the primary focus for the Czech Republic, with its National AI Strategy being the main policy document.

Czech Republic

European Union

The EU introduces the pioneering EU AI Act, aiming to become a global hub for human-centric, trustworthy AI.

 

European Union

France

France actively participates in international efforts and proposes sector-specific laws.

Paris

G7

The G7's AI regulations mandate Member States' compliance with international human rights law and relevant international frameworks.

G7 flags

Germany

Germany evaluates AI-specific legislation needs and actively engages in international initiatives.

Germany

India

National frameworks inform India’s approach to AI regulation, with sector-specific initiatives in finance and health sectors.

India

Israel

Israel promotes responsible AI innovation through policy and sector-specific guidelines to address core issues and ethical principles.

Israel

Italy

Italy engages in political discussions for future laws.

Milan

Japan

Japan adopts a soft law approach to AI governance but lawmakers advance proposal for a hard law approach for certain harms.

Tokyo

Kenya

Kenya's National AI Strategy and Code of Practice expected to set foundation of AI regulation once finalized.

Kenya
Kenya

Nigeria

Nigeria's draft National AI Policy underway and will pave the way for a comprehensive national AI strategy.

Nigeria
Nigeria

Norway

Position paper informs Norwegian approach to AI, with sector-specific legislative amendments to regulate developments in AI.

Norway

OECD

The OECD's AI recommendations encourage Member States to uphold principles of trustworthy AI.

country flags

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is yet to enact AI Regulations, relying on guidelines to establish practice standards and general principles.

Riyadh_Hero_1600x600 Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Singapore's AI frameworks guide AI ethical and governance principles, with existing sector-specific regulations addressing AI risks.

Singapore

South Africa

South Africa is yet to announce any AI regulation proposals but is in the process of obtaining inputs for a draft National AI plan.

Johannesburg

South Korea

South Korea's AI Act to act as a consolidated body of law governing AI once approved by the National Assembly.

Korea

Spain

Spain creates Europe's first AI supervisory agency and actively participates in EU AI Act negotiations.

Madrid

Switzerland

Switzerland's National AI Strategy sets out guidelines for the use of AI, and aims to finalize an AI regulatory proposal in 2025.

Switzerland

Taiwan

Draft laws and guidelines are under consideration in Taiwan, with sector-specific initiatives already in place.

Taiwan city

Turkey

Turkey has published multiple guidelines on the use of AI in various sectors, with a bill for AI regulation now in the legislative process.

Türkiye

United Arab Emirates

Mainland UAE has published an array of decrees and guidelines regarding regulation of AI, while the ADGM and DIFC free zones each rely on amendments to existing data protection laws to regulate AI.

UAE

United Kingdom

The UK prioritizes a flexible framework over comprehensive regulation and emphasizes sector-specific laws.

London hero image

United Nations

The UN's new draft resolution on AI encourages Member States to implement national regulatory and governance approaches for a global consensus on safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems.

United Nations

United States

The US relies on existing federal laws and guidelines to regulate AI but aims to introduce AI legislation and a federal regulation authority.

New York city photo

Contacts

Tim Hickman
Partner
London
Erin Hanson
Partner
New York
Dr. Sylvia Lorenz
Partner
Berlin
Riyadh_Hero_1600x600 Saudi Arabia

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker - Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is yet to enact AI Regulations, relying on guidelines to establish practice standards and general principles.

Insight
|
6 min read

Laws/Regulations directly regulating AI (the “AI Regulations”)

There are currently no AI Regulations that have the force of law in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the "Kingdom"). That said, the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority of Saudi Arabia (SDAIA) have issued draft AI Ethics Principles dated September 2023 (the "AI Principles").1  The Council of Ministers' Resolution No. (292) mandates SDAIA to develop policies, governance mechanisms, standards, and controls related to data and artificial intelligence and monitor compliance therewith upon issuance. SDAIA has analyzed global practices and standards to develop these AI Principles which aim to:

  • Support the Kingdom's efforts towards achieving its vision and national strategies related to adopting AI technology, encouraging research and innovation, and driving economic growth for prosperity and development
  • Develop and establish AI ethics policies, guidelines, regulations, and frameworks
  • Govern data and AI models to limit the negative implications of AI systems (economically, psychologically, socially, etc.) and potential threats (security, political, etc.)
  • Help entities adopt standards and ethics when building and developing AI-based solutions to ensure responsible use thereof
  • Protect the privacy of data subjects and their rights with respect to the collection and processing of their data2

Additionally, SDAIA has also issued two Generative AI Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), both dated January 1, 2024. The first version is directed toward government employees (the "Government Guidelines").3 The second version is for the public (the "Public Guidelines").4 Both versions provide guidelines regarding adoption and use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) systems, along with examples based on common scenarios. They also highlight the challenges and considerations associated with the use of GenAI, propose principles for responsible use, and present recommended practices. These Guidelines also do not have the force of law but serve as guidance. 

Status of the AI Regulations 

As noted above, the AI Principles remain in draft, and there are currently no specific laws or regulations in the Kingdom that directly regulate AI.

Other laws affecting AI

There are several other areas of law that affect the development or use of AI, including the Personal Data Protection Law5, intellectual property laws, and other laws that may affect the use of AI in specific sectors or contexts.

Definition of “AI”

SDAIA defines "AI" as: systems that employ methods that can gather data and use it to predict, suggest, or make decisions with varying degrees of autonomy and select the best course of action to accomplish particular objectives.6

Territorial scope 

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in the Kingdom that directly regulate AI. The AI Principles are currently in draft form and therefore do not have the force of law in the Kingdom. That said, when the draft AI Principles do get issued, they shall apply to all AI stakeholders designing, developing, deploying, implementing, using, or being affected by AI systems within the Kingdom, including but not limited to public entities, private entities, non-profit entities, researchers, public services, institutions, civil society organizations, individuals, workers, and consumers.7

The Guidelines apply to (i) the public, including developers and users of GenAI, in the Kingdom8; and (ii) promote the responsible and effective utilization of GenAI tools and services in government transactions.9 The Guidelines As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in the Kingdom that directly regulate AI. The AI Principles are currently in draft form and therefore do not have the force of law in the Kingdom. That said, when the draft AI Principles do get issued, they shall apply to all AI stakeholders designing, developing, deploying, implementing, using, or being affected by AI systems within the Kingdom, including but not limited to public entities, private entities, non-profit entities, researchers, public services, institutions, civil society organizations, individuals, workers, and consumers.  

The Guidelines apply to (i) the public, including developers and users of GenAI, in the Kingdom ; and (ii) promote the responsible and effective utilization of GenAI tools and services in government transactions.9 The Guidelines emphasize the proper use and processing of government data in adherence to relevant laws and regulations in the Kingdom. 

Sectoral scope 

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in the Kingdom that regulate AI. Accordingly, there is no specific sectoral scope at this stage.

Compliance roles 

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in the Kingdom that regulate AI. The AI Principles and the Guidelines do not have the force of law, so compliance is not mandatory. The AI Principles are still in draft form and the Guidelines specifically provide that they are for guidance purposes and are not obligatory. 

That said, pursuant to the Royal Order establishing SDAIA, SDAIA does have the overarching power to monitor and create regulations regarding AI, which does include the right to monitor compliance of AI Regulations if issued in the future.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

Based on the draft AI Principles, the core issues are as follows:

  • Fairness
  • Privacy and security
  • Humanity
  • Social and environmental benefits
  • Reliability and safety
  • Transparency and explainability
  • Accountability and responsibility10

Risk categorization

The Guidelines provide no category of risk, but provide the following categories of risk mitigation measures:11

Deepfakes and Misrepresentation – This includes mitigation measures such as:

  • Watermark implementation
  • Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols for cloud server providers
  • Output verification
  • Enhanced digital literacy and online safety

Safety Threats – This includes mitigation measures such as:

  • Content moderation and filtering systems
  • Training dataset filtering
  • Limiting open access/open source for scientific GenAI models

Misinformation and Hallucination – This includes mitigation measures such as:

  • Content verification and citation
  • Content labelling
  • User vigilance and fact-checking
  • Raising awareness

Classified Data Breaches – This includes mitigation measures such as:

  • GenAI usage protocols
  • Employee awareness and training
  • User data control

Certification Fraud – This includes mitigation measures such as:

  • Assessment enhancement
  • Education and training
  • Guidelines and policies
  • Query proficiency

Intellectual Property Infringement and Protection – This includes mitigation measures such as:

  • IP licensing and due diligence
  • Creator permission and compensation

Variability of Outputs – This includes mitigation measures such as:

  • Clear annotation for AI-generated code
  • Regularly verifying and validating code
  • Staying informed about updates
  • Building expertise

Key compliance requirements

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in the Kingdom that directly regulate AI. The relevant aspects of the AI Principles and the Guidelines are set out above.

Regulators

The key regulator is SDAIA. SDAIA is the competent authority in the Kingdom concerned with data and AI, including big data. SDAIA is also the national reference in all matters related to the organization, development, and handling of data and AI; in addition, it has the original competence in all matters related to operation, research, and innovation in the field of data and AI. SDAIA was established by Royal Order No. (A/471) and is headquartered in Riyadh. SDAIA is directly linked to the Prime Minister; its sub-entities are the National Data Management Office (NDMO), National Center for AI (NCAI), and National Information Center (NIC), all of which are organizationally linked.

Enforcement powers and penalties 

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in the Kingdom that directly regulate AI. As such, enforcement and penalties relating to the creation, dissemination and/or use of AI are governed by the Royal Order establishing SDAIA, which does grant SDAIA the overarching power to monitor and regulate AI in the Kingdom.

1 See here 
2
See here, p.5
See here
4
See here
5
See here 
6
See here
7
See here, p.9
8
See here, p.5
See here, p.5
10 
See here 
11
See here, section 5 "Generative AI Risks & Mitigations"

White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.

This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.

© 2024 White & Case LLP

Ghazi Kayal (Associate, White & Case, Riyadh) and Jeffrey Shin (Trainee Solicitor, White & Case, London) contributed to this publication.

Top