Audited AI-regulation data API

Every AI law.
One audited API.

Track 1,306 regulatory records across 74 jurisdictions with binding AI law — source-linked, expert-audited, updated the day the law changes. Free to use: an API key in seconds, no account, no card.

1,306records tracked
74jurisdictions with binding AI law
135in force today
100%source-linked
Dailyupdated

74 jurisdictions with binding AI law · 7 jurisdictions with voluntary AI frameworks (the two overlap; we never add them)how we count

The States

AI law status across the US

Click any state for its status, deadline and penalty. Colour reflects the verbatim legal status we track.

8 In effect4 Enacted17 Proposed21 No law
The Docket

Key AI-law deadlines

The landmark laws and the dates they bite. Status, date and penalty on each card are transcribed from the statute’s primary government source. See every deadline we track →

The Record
● Live

Latest AI law news across the states

Updated August 27, 2026

The newest AI regulation and policy headlines from across all 50 states, aggregated automatically. Follow each link for the full story.

Woster: Even AI needs a little help writing our lawsKen Lund · CC BY-SA 2.0 · via flickr
Woster: Even AI needs a little help writing our laws

Coverage from Madison Daily Leader on AI legislation and regulation relevant to South Dakota.

Madison Daily Leader·
Bill Gates fears world leaders are unprepared for 3 major AI risks: 'Stunted' child development, emboldened criminals, and vanishing jobs for Gen ZUS Department of Education · CC BY 2.0 · via flickr
Bill Gates fears world leaders are unprepared for 3 major AI risks: 'Stunted' child development, emboldened criminals, and vanishing jobs for Gen Z

Coverage from Fortune on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Washington.

Fortune·
Bill Gates proposes major limits on AI developmentTim Evanson · CC BY-SA 2.0 · via flickr
Bill Gates proposes major limits on AI development

Coverage from CNN on AI legislation and regulation relevant to South Carolina.

CNN·
California SB 574: Will AI’s Home State Kill Off AI for Law?o palsson · CC BY 2.0 · via flickr
California SB 574: Will AI’s Home State Kill Off AI for Law?

Coverage from Artificial Lawyer on AI legislation and regulation relevant to California.

Artificial Lawyer·
Bill Gates seeks meeting with China’s Xi Jinping to propose global AI limitsTim Evanson · CC BY-SA 2.0 · via flickr
Bill Gates seeks meeting with China’s Xi Jinping to propose global AI limits

Coverage from The Jerusalem Post on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Washington DC.

The Jerusalem Post·
Boise man sentenced for ‘horrible’ child porn. Charges included new AI lawflickingerbrad · CC BY 2.0 · via flickr
Boise man sentenced for ‘horrible’ child porn. Charges included new AI law

Coverage from Idaho Statesman on AI legislation and regulation relevant to Idaho.

Idaho Statesman·
The Record

Regulation is compounding

Drawn from the ALT dataset — every figure below is a live count over our own primary-sourced corpus. Nothing here is estimated.

AI lawmaking by year
records by primary-source date
3
≤2021
2
2022
8
2023
13
2024
330
2025
895
2026
tracked  in force
What AI laws regulate
records mentioning each theme
Transparency & disclosure157
Healthcare & mental health148
Deepfakes, synthetic media & elections133
Chatbots & conversational AI85
Employment & hiring83
High-risk & algorithmic discrimination53
The penalty spectrum
maximum exposure, quoted verbatim · $500 → €35M / 7% of global turnover

Penalty text is set by the enacting government and quoted as written; each row links to its official source.

US Law Platform

What we cover today

measured 2026-08-20 · verify live at /v1/us-law/taxonomy
Available today — Laws & Regulations
31,913
Records tracked
title / chapter / part level
52
Jurisdictions
50 states + DC, plus federal
33 / 227
Classification
branches / subcategories, many-to-many
27,886
Currently in force
of 31,913 records
Planned — not available, not sold
Planned
Enforcement & Litigation
Who actually got fined, under which section
Distinct from the AI Law Tracker product’s enforcement feed (/v1/enforcement), which exists and covers AI-specific matters only. This layer would cover the general US-law corpus, and does not exist yet.
Planned
Intelligence
What changed, what is anomalous, what is coming
Distinct from Regulatory Exposure Intelligence (/regulatory-exposure), the brief sold over the AI Law Tracker corpus. This layer would be a queryable analysis layer over the general US-law corpus, and does not exist yet.

68.2% of records carry a substantive classification today; the remaining 10,139 sit in the `other_unclassified` placeholder while we work through them. Records link to the official text and do not reproduce it.

Intelligence

No AI guesswork.

Every finding is computed deterministically from primary sources and linked to them. No language model interprets the law.

Regulatory Exposure Intelligence runs our AI-law and enforcement corpus against one company profile every week: which instruments reach it and from what date, which obligations commence next, which regulators are active in its sector, and what has been applied to comparable companies. Obligations are quoted word for word from the official source, with the citation and a link — not our summary of the duty, the duty as enacted.

See what is in a briefRead two real briefs$1,050/month · first brief within minutes of purchase

Methodology

Findings are computed, not generated. Every finding is derived deterministically from primary sources and linked to them. No language model is called at any point in producing this brief — it does not write the findings, and it does not phrase them either.

Where the data comes from

Two corpora, both maintained by us and both built from primary sources. The AI-law corpus holds statutes, regulations and bills collected from official legislature and agency sites. The enforcement corpus holds actions brought by regulators — federal agencies, state attorneys general, and named foreign authorities — each recorded with the agency, the instrument, the AI application, and a link to the announcement it came from. Nothing is entered from a secondary summary without being marked as such.

How a company is matched to the record

A profile carries a sector, the states it operates in, and the AI applications it runs. Instruments are resolved against it by rule — jurisdiction, layer, and whether the instrument is in force on a proven date. Enforcement matters are matched on four axes: AI application, the statute cited, the home jurisdiction, and sector. The first three are treated as strong signals and sector as a weak one, because a sector match alone describes an industry rather than a company.

How the instrument text is read

When a brief is produced, the official source of each applicable instrument is read at that moment and is not stored. Provisions that impose an obligation and name the subject matter of the profile are quoted word for word, with the citation and a link to the document the words came from. Whitespace is normalised; nothing else is changed, and nothing is paraphrased.

When the engine declines to answer

A direction of travel for enforcement ("rising", "falling") is stated only when four conditions hold at once: enough dated matters, enough of them dated, enough distinct months, and comparable coverage across the two windows. That last condition exists because a collection lane going quiet looks exactly like enforcement declining. A monetary range is given only over matters that actually record an amount, and the count is printed beside it. A penalty recorded in a source that covers several matters is not attributed to any one of them. A provision whose citation is not unique in its document is dropped rather than guessed. Where a source could not be read, the brief says so instead of reporting an empty result.

What is not in the pipeline

No language model. Not to classify a matter, not to summarise a statute, not to phrase a finding. Every sentence in a brief is assembled from values the engine computed, by templates held in the codebase, and a test fails the build if a model call appears anywhere in the intelligence engine. This also means the brief contains no assessment of whether an obligation has been met, no prediction of enforcement, and no scoring of any individual person.

Regulatory Exposure Intelligence reports what the public legal record shows. It is not legal advice, not an assessment of whether any obligation has been met, and not a prediction of enforcement. Every finding links to its source. Decisions should be taken with qualified counsel.

For developers

The AI-regulation dataset as a clean JSON API

Every law we track — US state & federal, EU, and other national regimes — as a versioned, source-linked JSON API, with an MCP server for agents. Free self-serve key, no account, no card.

32REST endpoints
4data scopes
30MCP tools
GET /v1/laws
curl https://ai-law-tracker.com/api/v1/laws?jurisdiction=california \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ALT_API_KEY"
200 OK · application/json
{
  "data": [
    {
      "id": "ca-sb-942",
      "title": "California AI Transparency Act",
      "jurisdiction": "california",
      "scope": "state",
      "status": "Enacted",
      "in_force": false,
      "effective_date": "2026-08-02",
      "official_url": "https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/…SB942"
    }
  ],
  "meta": { "count": 1, "source_linked": true }
}