A snapshot of where every US state, the EU, and 11 more countries stand on AI law — built entirely from our own primary-sourced records.
The United States has no single federal AI statute, so AI regulation is being written 51 different ways — state by state — on top of the existing federal framework. This report maps that patchwork with hard numbers: how many states already enforce an AI law, how many have signed one with a deadline pending, how many are still debating bills, and how many have no comprehensive law at all. Every figure below is a live count over the same audited, primary-sourced records that power our state tracker — nothing here is estimated or editorialised.
Of 51 US jurisdictions (50 states + Washington D.C.), 8 enforce an AI-specific law today; a further Alabama executive order governs state agencies only, so it is excluded from that headline. Counts are mutually exclusive and sum to 51.
The 51 jurisdictions grouped by enforcement status — the same taxonomy as our by-status hub. Each state links to its full, sourced profile.
An AI-specific or AI-applicable law is enforceable today — the highest-priority compliance targets.
Signed into law with a compliance deadline on the calendar. The work should already be under way.
Bills moving through a legislature or task forces preparing recommendations — worth monitoring closely.
No comprehensive state AI statute in force. Federal rules and existing consumer-protection law still apply.
A transparent, reproducible composite: each state scores its enforcement status (in effect / partially in effect = 4, enacted = 3, executive order or proposed = 2, study phase = 1, none = 0) plus the number of distinct AI statutes and bills we track for it. It is our analysis, not an official ranking — the inputs are shown so you can recompute it yourself.
| # | State | Status | Laws tracked | Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New York | Partially In Effect | 2 | 6 |
| 2 | Utah | In Effect | 2 | 6 |
| 3 | Illinois | In Effect | 1 | 5 |
| 4 | Maine | In Effect | 1 | 5 |
| 5 | Minnesota | In Effect | 1 | 5 |
| 6 | Montana | In Effect | 1 | 5 |
| 7 | Tennessee | In Effect | 1 | 5 |
| 8 | Texas | In Effect | 1 | 5 |
| 9 | California | Enacted | 1 | 4 |
| 10 | Colorado | Enacted | 1 | 4 |
| 11 | Indiana | Enacted | 1 | 4 |
| 12 | Rhode Island | Enacted | 1 | 4 |
See the full list of all 51 jurisdictions on the states index, or compare any two side by side with the compare tool.
Tagged by scanning the real statute names and requirement summaries across all 51jurisdictions. A state can appear under several themes; the count is the number of jurisdictions whose tracked laws mention that theme. Every chip links to the page where the language lives, so each match is verifiable.
Telling people when AI is being used on them — the single most common thread.
Duties tied to “high-risk” or consequential automated decisions, incl. anti-discrimination.
Bias audits and notice requirements for AI used in hiring, promotion and discipline.
Labeling AI-generated media, especially in political and election communications.
Disclosure and safety duties for public-facing conversational AI and companion bots.
Criminalizing AI-generated CSAM and non-consensual intimate imagery.
Guardrails on AI in medical, mental-health and behavioral-health settings.
Consent rules for AI voice/likeness replicas (Tennessee’s ELVIS Act is the model).
Beyond the US we track 15 EU member states — all under the binding EU AI Act — plus 11 more national regimes. Their approaches fall into a few families:
Omnibus, risk-based statutes that regulate AI directly across sectors.
Principles applied by existing regulators, or promotion statutes with no penalties — innovation-first.
A stack of enforceable, sector-specific AI rules rather than one law.
No dedicated AI Act yet; AI is governed through privacy/data-protection law (some with AI bills pending).
| Country | Status (verbatim) |
|---|---|
| Australia | Voluntary framework |
| Brazil | Bill in the Chamber of Deputies |
| Canada | No federal AI Act (AIDA lapsed) |
| China | Multiple sector rules in force |
| India | No dedicated AI Act (DPDP Act enacted; rules phasing in) |
| Japan | Act in force (soft-law) |
| Saudi Arabia | PDPL in force; AI governed by SDAIA principles |
| Singapore | Voluntary framework |
| South Korea | In Effect (Jan 22, 2026) |
| United Arab Emirates | Strategy-led; binding data-protection law |
| United Kingdom | In Effect (no dedicated AI Act) |
Every figure in this report is a live count over AI Law Tracker's jurisdiction records. Each record is hand-audited against a primary government source — the statute, bill text, or official regulator — and carries a verification date. Records without a primary source are excluded from indexing entirely by our source guard. Status buckets mirror our by-status hub; the Activity Index formula is disclosed above. We publish what a primary source can back and nothing more — this is a compliance-tracking resource, not legal advice.
Data last verified Aug 15, 2026. Suggested citation:
AI Law Tracker, “The State of U.S. AI Regulation — 2026,” updated Aug 15, 2026. https://ai-law-tracker.com/state-of-ai-law