Policy context
How major jurisdictions are approaching AI governance — useful context for buyers who operate across borders. Simplified for orientation; always verify against primary law and counsel.
| Region | Instrument | Posture | Focus | Implication for buyers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| India | DPDP Act 2023 · MeitY AI advisories / strategy tracks | Privacy statute + evolving AI guidance; India-first compliance conversations | Personal data fiduciary duties; sector circulars; digital public infrastructure context | AskVerum’s public privacy frame is DPDP-first; AI product claims stay decision-support only |
| European Union | EU AI Act (Reg. 2024/1689) | Horizontal, risk-tiered regulation with prohibited / high-risk regimes | System classification, conformity, transparency, GPAI obligations | Enterprise buyers often ask for DPIA-like artefacts and clear non-claims — not a chatbot UX |
| United States | NIST AI RMF · executive / agency actions (evolving) | Framework-led and sectoral rather than one omnibus AI statute (federal) | Risk management (Govern/Map/Measure/Manage); agency procurement and safety guidance | “Aligned to NIST AI RMF” is a practice claim — not a NIST certification |
| United Kingdom | Pro-innovation AI regulation white paper / regulator principles | Principles via existing regulators rather than a single AI Act clone | Safety, transparency, fairness, accountability, contestability | Buyers may want audit trails and explainability without expecting EU Act labels |
| Singapore | Model AI Governance Framework (IMDA/PDPC) | Voluntary, operational guidance for organisations | Internal governance, risk mitigation, stakeholder communication | Useful checklist culture; not a substitute for India’s DPDP or EU Act duties |
| OECD / multilateral | OECD AI Principles | Soft-law principles adopted widely in national strategies | Inclusive growth, human-centred values, transparency, robustness, accountability | Good shared vocabulary; not enforceable by itself |
Primary documents: . Not legal advice.