How AI Law Tracker tracks and verifies the law
AI Law Tracker is written and edited by a small, independent editorial team. This page explains who makes it, how the law is tracked and verified, what we claim, and — just as important — what we do not.
Who makes this
Every page is written and edited by the AI Law Tracker editorial team — a small, independent group focused on tracking AI regulation from primary government sources. AI Law Tracker is not a law firm and does not present itself as one, and no page is published as legal advice.
How the law is tracked
Coverage is anchored to primary government sources first. Law pages are built from official statutes, bill text, and agency rules; live feeds are pulled directly from official APIs and registries (for example state legislatures via Open States, the EU’s EUR-Lex, Congress.gov, and national legislation portals) and then checked by a human before they shape a page.
- Automation is disclosed, not hidden: some drafting and the news/bill feeds are AI- and script-assisted. Nothing is published as raw machine output — claims are checked against the cited primary source.
- Automatically aggregated news headlines are labelled as such, and link out to the original publisher; they are background context, not a substitute for the primary law.
- Where a feed cannot be verified against a primary source, the curated, human-written law summary is what the page shows.
Source hierarchy & verification
When sources disagree, the primary government source wins. The order of trust is: the enacting government’s own text and trackers, then the regulator’s official guidance, then reputable secondary analysis. Every law page links to its primary source and shows a "last verified" date for when that source was last opened and confirmed.
Accuracy & corrections
We get things wrong sometimes — an outdated penalty figure, a mis-stated deadline, a mis-classified status. When an error is flagged we fix it and re-stamp the verification date. We only change that date when the content genuinely changes, never to fake freshness. The fastest way to reach a human is the contact page.
What we claim — and what we don’t
We claim to be an accurate, neutral, openly-sourced starting point for understanding AI law. We do not claim to give legal advice, predict how a court will rule, or replace a licensed attorney. Use the site to get oriented, then talk to qualified counsel before relying on any specific compliance decision.
What counts as an “AI law”
Coverage numbers are only meaningful next to the definition that produced them. Ours is published in full: which instruments count as AI-specific and on what evidence, which general instruments are kept but never counted, which are out of scope, and which we refuse to classify by machine and send to a human queue instead. Bindingness is tracked on a separate axis, so we state coverage as records and in-force counts rather than one flattering number.
Read it here: the AI scope definition.
Who writes this
Editorial responsibility for every page sits with the AI Law Tracker editorial team. That is a statement about accountability, not about keystrokes: as the automation section above says, a large share of the drafting — news stories, bill summaries, generated explainer prose — is produced by an automated pipeline from cited primary sources and then checked against those sources. News stories carry that disclosure on the story itself.
For the project’s independence and funding, see ownership & funding. For what we do with your data and where our own AI use starts and stops, see our data & AI practices.