Human oversight of automated decisions

Emergency departments deploying AI for triage, diagnosis, documentation, or operational decision support.

Guidance · In Force

Use of AI in workflows that influence Medicare or Medicaid claims, prior authorization, or coverage decisions.

Guidance · In Force

Submission of false or fraudulent claims for payment to the U.S. government, including by AI-influenced clinical documentation and billing systems.

Law · In Force

FINRA member firms using generative AI or autonomous AI agents.

Guidance · In Force

Developers and deployers of Automated Decision-Making Technology making consequential decisions about Colorado consumers.

Law · Pending

An artificial intelligence system that determines or influences prior authorization for a Washington health plan, deployed by a carrier offering a health plan issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2024 (RCW 48.43.830(1)), by a health plan offered to public employees, retirees and their covered dependents under chapter 41.05 RCW (RCW 41.05.845(1)), or by a health care benefit manager as defined in RCW 48.200.020 carrying out prior authorization functions under direct or indirect contract with a carrier (RCW 48.43.830(6)). A provider or facility submitting requests is outside the act.

Law · In Force

Indiana health insurers and health maintenance organizations — may not use automated systems or artificial intelligence as the sole basis to downcode a health claim based on medical necessity without a human reviewing the beneficiary medical record; healthcare providers may not use automated tools to submit claims without review by the provider or billing professional.

Law · In Force

An institution subject to the Policy on Service and Digital — a department within the meaning of s. 2 of the Financial Administration Act — using an automated decision system in production to make an administrative decision or a related assessment about a client (Directive, ss. 5.1 and 8.1). Systems used solely for research and experimentation and those in test environments are out of scope (s. 5.2). The instrument reaches systems developed or procured after 1 April 2020, and systems predating that date once significantly modified (s. 1.2).

Guidance · In Force

The organization is a public sector entity within EDSTA s. 1 (1): an institution within the meaning of s. 2 (1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act other than the Assembly, an institution within the meaning of s. 2 (1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a children aid society, or a school board. The cyber duties in O. Reg. 51/26 attach only to the narrower class prescribed by its s. 2: FIPPA educational institutions, Group A, B and C public hospitals, the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, children aid societies and school boards. The under-18 notice duties in O. Reg. 52/26 attach to every school board. The artificial-intelligence duties in ss. 5 and 6 attach only to entities and circumstances prescribed under s. 7, and none is prescribed.

Law · In Force

Developers and deployers of AI systems in Peru's public administration, state companies, and private sector (excluding personal use and national defence/security).

Law · Partially In Force

Surfaced as voluntary standards context wherever an AI system informs or makes a decision, at any lifecycle phase from data collection onwards. ISO/IEC TR 24027 creates no duty of its own and contains no requirements; where an organisation is bound to use it, the binding instrument is a contract, a tender condition or an internal policy, and the exposure for a bias failure belongs to the instrument that governs the decision.

Standard · In Force

Surfaced wherever an AI system is designed, developed, deployed or used, in any sector and for any purpose: para. 2 (b) defines AI actors as any natural or legal person involved in any stage of the life cycle, para. 4 offers ethical guidance to all AI actors including the private sector, and the Recommendation carves out no domain. It creates no duty on anyone — Member States apply it voluntarily and AI actors receive guidance. Three rows carry the condition their paragraph turns on: decisions about people (para. 38, decision limb) and the provider role (paras. 51, last sentence, and 120, last sentence).

Guidance · In Force

Processing of personal data of individuals in Switzerland, regardless of where the controller is established.

Law · In Force

Any AI system reaching a person in Uzbekistan -- human oversight is required for legally significant decisions relating to a person's rights and freedoms, a no-harm standard applies to AI-created resources and AI-based systems, and AI-specific administrative liability attaches to unlawful personal-data processing or dissemination.

Law · In Force