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
Türkiye

AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker - 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.

Insight
|
11 min read

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

Currently, there is no specific law or regulation that directly regulates AI in Turkey, though it is anticipated that this may change in the foreseeable future. The government is keen to encourage the responsible use of AI through various measures, including the creation of "AI hubs" to support Turkish businesses, and such measures have been reflected in Turkey's National Strategic Plans since 2021. 

The Turkish Personal Data Protection Authority (the "KVKK1") has published a series of privacy-focused guidelines concerning the implementation of AI solutions in different sectors. The KVKK's "Recommendations on the Protection of Personal Data in the Field of Artificial Intelligence" (the "AI Recommendations2") set out the KVKK's expectations regarding respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, and imposing limits on the use of personal data in AI applications. Further, the KVKK's "Guidelines on Good Practices regarding the Protection of Personal Data in Banking Sector3" provide recommendations for financial institutions and banks processing personal data through, among others, AI-based products. Finally, the KVKK's "Guidelines on Protection of Privacy in Mobile Applications"4 clarify that AI-based mobile applications should adhere to the principles of transparency and predictability. Although these guidelines are non-binding, they illustrate the KVKK's current stance on AI. 

Status of the AI Regulations 

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations that directly regulate AI in Turkey. The Digital Transformation Office of the Presidency of Turkey (the Digital Transformation Office)5 created in 2018 as the policy-making body to spearhead digital and technological developments in the country, is actively working on building a legal framework to support and regulate AI. To date, the Digital Transformation Office has published a series of strategic planning notes related to promoting the use and development of AI in Turkey (e.g., by investing in education, training, research, and infrastructure), but nothing related to the regulation of AI.

On June 25, 2024, a bill for the regulation of AI in Turkey (the "AI Bill")6 was presented before parliament. The Bill is currently with the parliamentary committee review in accordance with Turkish legislative process. If the AI Bill passes this review, it will be presented to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (the National Assembly) for deliberations and voting to be adopted as law. The AI Bill comprises eight articles that seek to set a general framework around AI regulation based on the principles of safety, transparency, equality, accountability, and privacy. It lacks any specificity as to how these principles will be adopted and enforced in practice. Whether the majority political parties will support the AI Bill remains to be seen.

Other laws affecting AI

Turkey has in place a broad legislative framework around technology, including cybersecurity, internet, and social media, which may affect the use of AI, including:

  • The Law on Consumer Protection (No. 6502) and the Law on Regulating Electronic Commerce Law (No. 6563) – both laws regulate practices that influence consumer behavior (e.g., advertising) and rights, which may have implications on the use of AI in e-commerce
  • The Turkish Criminal Code (No. 5237) criminalizes "misinformation" and "fake news" on the internet, which may have implications on AI-generated content
  • The Law on Highway Traffics (No. 2918) regulates highway traffic, navigation, and roadmaps, and may have implications on the use of AI in these services, as well as in self-driving cars and other automated vehicles 
  • The Law on Industrial Property (No. 6769) is the umbrella legislation covering copyright, trademark and patent rights, and may have implications on AI-generated content and works
  • The Law on Protection of Personal Data (No. 6698) regulates the collection, use, processing, and localization of personal information, and may have implications over all uses of AI that relies on personal data
  • The Law on Regulation of Broadcasts through Internet and Combatting of Crimes Committed Through Such Publications (No. 5651) regulates criminal content online, including on social media platforms, and may have implications on AI-generated content, as well as on the use of AI in other functions of these platforms such as personalized advertising
  • The Regulation on the ID Process Verification of the Applicant in the Electronic Communication Sector (no. 2021/31523) and the Regulation Remote ID Verification Methods to be Used and Electronic/Digital Contracts to be Executed by Financial Leasing, Factoring, Financing, and Saving Financing Companies (no. 2022/31716) – both regulate the use of electronic IDs and verification of personal information, which may have implications on AI-based verification systems
  • The Draft Regulation on Cryptocurrency Assets (no. 6362; currently pending before the Turkish National Assembly) envisions the use of AI for the prevention of money laundering activities

Definition of “AI”

There is currently no specific definition of AI under Turkish Law. The KVKK suggests in its AI Recommendations that the term AI refers broadly to computation ability to execute tasks normally associated with humans, such as thinking, interpreting, and making decisions. Further, Turkey's National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, published by the Digital Transformation Office in 2021 (the National AI Strategy)7 offers a similar interpretation.

Similarly, under Article 2 of the AI Bill, AI is defined as "computer-based systems that are able to carry out human-like skills such as learning, rationalization, problem solving, perception, semantic comprehension and cognitive functions."

Territorial scope

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Turkey that directly regulate AI.

Sectoral scope

The strategic plans and guidelines the Turkish government has published so far suggest that the expected AI regulations will focus on the sectors of banking, finance, legal, health, automotive, personal data (privacy), e-commerce, intellectual property, capital markets, national security and e-government. In particular, the National AI Strategy focuses on promoting the use and development of AI, specifically generative AI, to support and assist the following sectors:

  • National security and cybersecurity
  • Telecommunications, 5G, and blockchain
  • Electronic judiciary systems 
  • Automation of trademark and patent procedures
  • Automation of record keeping in export/import transactions
  • Preventative medicine and vaccination
  • Prevention of fraud and money laundering
  • E-finance

Compliance roles 

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Turkey that directly regulate AI. Accordingly, there are currently no legal obligations specifically assigned to developers, users, operators and/or deployers of AI systems. The KVKK's AI Recommendations provide definitions of data processors, developers, manufacturers, and service providers, but do not make any compliance recommendations for any of these roles specifically.

The AI Bill sets forth four different compliance roles, "provider", "implementor/user", "importer", and "distributor", and introduces the blank term that covers all these four roles, "operator". The AI Bill does not impose any specific obligations on these compliance roles; rather, it simply requires that all "operators" comply with the general principles of safety, transparency, equality, accountability, and privacy.

Core issues that the AI Regulations seek to address

There are currently no specific laws or regulations in Turkey which directly regulate AI. However, both the AI Recommendations and the National AI Strategy underline the need for "ethical AI." We expect the notions of responsibility, transparency, and predictability to be the core elements of regulation of AI in Turkey. 

Turkey is known to closely observe the legal developments in the European Union (e.g., EU AI Act), which it frequently relies on as models for national legislation. We can expect Turkey to regulate AI in a manner consistent and compatible with the relevant EU regulations.

On a broader level, the National AI Strategy focuses on the integration of AI as a political priority to increase the social welfare and strengthen the country's national security. Turkey also aims to increase its global competitiveness, achieve economic and technological independence, and undertake policies and practices that will lead to breakthroughs in critical technologies, including AI. These will be the other key considerations for Turkey in regulating AI.

In accordance with the AI Guidelines and the National AI Strategy, the AI Bill requires that all "operators" comply with the general principles of safety, transparency, equality, accountability, and privacy. It also introduces a hefty monetary fine for the provision of "false information". Unlike the AI Guidelines and the National AI Strategy, however, the AI Bill is silent on child safety.

Risk categorization

Because Turkey currently has no AI-specific laws or regulations in Turkey, there is no official risk categorization.

The National AI Strategy states that "standardization and certification" will be promoted to reduce the risks of AI use. The National AI Strategy also envisions the use of AI to support responses to national and global crises such as pandemics and natural disasters.

On a broader level, Turkey has recently taken measures to combat misinformation, hate speech and financial fraud online. These are high-risk areas where Turkey may rely on AI to address these problems more effectively while also restricting any use of AI that could exacerbate them.

The AI Bill refers to "high-risk AI systems" without any definition. In its Preamble, the AI Bill gives the examples of "self-driving vehicles", "medical diagnosis systems", and "judicial systems that rely on AI" as high-risk AI systems. The AI Bill does not introduce any specific obligations regarding high-risk AI systems but subjects them to a "registration" requirement. The AI Bill does not specify how this registration requirement will work in practice but sets forth that competent supervisory authorities must conduct continuous monitoring and auditing of such systems. The AI Bill calls for specific, secondary regulations dealing with high-risk AI systems, which may clarify some of these uncertain provisions.

Key compliance requirements 

As noted above, there are currently no specific laws or regulations in Turkey that directly regulate AI. That said, in light of the AI Recommendations and National AI Strategy, we expect that the key compliance requirements will focus on the principles of transparency, accountability, protection of privacy and personal data, safety of individuals and specifically children, non-discrimination and reliability of information.

Regulators

There is currently no AI-specific regulation or regulator in Turkey. The KVKK is the main privacy regulator under Turkey's Personal Data Protection Law (No. 6698)8 and may indirectly regulate the AI field through various privacy-focused regulations that are in place in Turkey. The Information and Communications Technologies Authority, the Financial Crimes Investigation Board, the Capital Markets Board, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency, the Advertising Board and the Turkish Competition Authority, may each indirectly regulate AI within their own spheres. Turkey's anticipated AI regulations may create a new regulator specifically to regulate AI or distribute specific roles and duties among the existing regulators.

The AI Bill does not propose an AI-specific regulator, nor does it designate any existing regulator (such as the KVKK) to assume the role or the responsibility for the registration of high-risk AI systems (see "Risk categorization" section above for further details regarding the registration requirement).

Enforcement powers and penalties 

As stated above, there is no specific regulation that directly regulates AI in Turkey. However, other laws and regulations that may indirectly regulate AI (please refer to "Other laws affecting AI" section above) provide the Turkish regulators with a large toolbox of enforcement measures and penalties. For example, under Turkey's Law on Protection of Personal Data (No. 6698), sanctions for non-compliance include administrative fines. Under the Law on Regulation of Broadcasts through Internet and Combatting of Crimes Committed Through Such Publications (No. 5651), sanctions for non-compliance include, in addition to administrative fines, advertising bans and bandwidth reduction.

In September 2023, the Advertising Board imposed fines9 on advertisers to sanction practices that rely on AI-generated information to promote their products without "any factual research" proving "product or brand superiority." For example, one clothing brand claimed in its online advertisements that it is "the biggest fashion retailer in Turkey according to ChatGPT," which the Advertising Board found to be "unreliable" because there was no research or independent resource to support that claim and answers generated by ChatGPT may not always be "accurate or up to date." Finally, to the extent AI is used to commit any of the offences set out in the Turkish Penal Code, penalties envisioned therein will apply.

The AI Bill introduces hefty, annual turnover-based fines for certain noncompliance scenarios. These include:

  • Use of prohibited AI applications or systems, which may be penalized by a fine up to TL 35 million (approx. USD 1 million) or up to 7 percent of the subject's global turnover of the preceding fiscal year (the AI Bill does not provide any specifics as to when and on what basis AI applications can be prohibited and by whom)
  • Noncompliance with the provisions of AI Bill, which may be penalized by a fine up to TL 15 million (approx. USD 455,000) or 3 percent of the subject's global turnover of the preceding fiscal year
  • Provision of false information, which may be penalized by a fine up to TL 7,5 million (approx. USD 245.000) or 1.5 percent of the subject's global turnover of the preceding fiscal year (the AI Bill does not provide any specifics as to what constitutes false information and which authority is responsible for making that determination)

1 See here 
2
Recommendations on the Protection of Personal Data in the Field of Artificial Intelligence
3
Guidelines on Good Practices regarding the Protection of Personal Data in Banking Sector (available in Turkish only)
4
Guidelines on Protection of Privacy in Mobile Applications (available in Turkish only)
5 See the
website of the Digital Transformation Office of the Presidency of Turkey
6 Draft AI Bill introduced on June 25, 2024 (available in Turkish only)
7
See here 
8
Personal Data Protection Law (No. 6698)
9
https://ticaret.gov.tr/haberler/reklam-kurulu-yapay-zeka-reklamlarini-ilk-kez-incelemeye-aldi (available in Turkish only)

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

Selin Kaledelen (Associate, White & Case, Istanbul) and Cameron Lee (Trainee Solicitor, White & Case, London) contributed to this publication.

Top