China’s approach to regulating AI is characterised by a layered, incremental framework rather than a single overarching statute. Whilst no dedicated AI law is currently in force, a substantial body of existing legislation and technical standards governs AI-related activities, with the Cyberspace Administration of China (“<span class="news-text_medium">CAC</span>”) serving as the primary regulatory authority.
The principal instruments currently applicable to AI activities in China include <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Cybersecurity Law</span>, which establishes the foundational legislative orientation of balancing AI development with security; <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services</span>, which set out a regulatory framework for generative AI; <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis in Internet-based Information Services</span>, which address obligations specific to deepfake and synthetic media technologies; and <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Administrative Provisions on Recommendation Algorithms in Internet-based Information Services</span>, which require that algorithms be transparent, properly guided, secure and controllable. <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Measures for Labelling AI-Generated and Synthesised Content</span> further clarify the obligations of service providers in relation to the identification of AI-generated material.
Alongside these primary instruments, a series of national technical standards, including standards on AI content labelling, generative AI data annotation security and pre-training data security, provide practical compliance guidance, particularly for enterprises developing or deploying AI systems.
Whilst Chinese legislation does not prescribe a fixed list of regulated sectors, <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Measures for the Ethical Governance of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (Trial Version)</span> offer a working principle: regulatory attention is directed at activities that may pose ethical risks to human health, human dignity, the ecological environment, public order, or sustainable development. This encompasses, in particular, the development of human-AI integrated systems that meaningfully influence human behaviour or emotional states; algorithmic systems capable of public mobilisation or social influence; and highly autonomous decision-making systems deployed in safety-critical scenarios.
The CAC leads rulemaking and enforcement for AI and coordinates with other government departments on governance matters. It conducts active enforcement campaigns against AI misuse, issues compliance guidance and maintains a register of generative AI services. Other bodies with relevant responsibilities include the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, which focuses on industrial applications and technical standards; the Ministry of Science and Technology, which oversees national AI ethical guidelines; and the State Administration for Market Regulation, which handles standardisation of AI products. Sector-specific authorities, covering areas such as education, public security and broadcasting, also exercise supervisory functions within their respective remits.
China's AI governance is underpinned by a series of strategic documents. The New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan, promulgated in 2017, set the overarching objective of establishing China as a global AI leader by 2030. The Guidelines for Establishing a National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Standard System, issued in 2020, outlined the national standards architecture to support this ambition.
More recently, the Opinions of the State Council on Deepening the Implementation of the "Artificial Intelligence+" Initiative, promulgated in August 2025, set interim objectives for integrating AI across six key areas: technology, sectoral development, consumption quality, people's livelihoods and well-being, governance capacity and global cooperation. Sector-specific authorities in areas such as energy, transportation and healthcare have also issued supplementary policies tailored to their respective industries.
Whilst Chinese legislation does not directly reference international AI standards or guidelines, the principles embedded in the regulatory framework broadly echo those of international counterparts. <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The Provisional Measures for the Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services</span>, for instance, require providers to prevent discriminatory outputs, respect individuals’ rights to portrait, reputation and personal information and enhance service transparency, provisions which closely align with the OECD AI Principles on inclusive growth, human rights and transparency.
China has also directly adopted a number of international standards within its national framework, including ISO/IEC 42001:2023 on AI management systems and ISO/IEC 23894:2023 on AI risk management guidance. Whilst these national standards are recommendatory rather than mandatory, they represent significant compliance reference points for enterprises operating in the jurisdiction. China is also actively engaged in international AI governance, having called for the development of a global consensus on AI governance frameworks through the Global AI Governance Initiative in 2023.
A dedicated AI Law has been in preparation for some time. The 2023 Legislative Work Plan of the State Council confirmed that a draft was being prepared for submission to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and the 2024 and 2025 legislative agendas of the Standing Committee included AI legislative projects amongst their preliminary review items. However, no official draft had been released as at December 2025 and the timeline for enactment remains uncertain.
For enterprises operating in or with China, the absence of a single AI statute does not mean a light regulatory touch. The existing framework is substantial and actively enforced and the direction of travel points clearly towards a more comprehensive legislative regime. Businesses would do well to monitor developments closely and ensure that their AI-related activities are assessed against the full range of applicable instruments, particularly as a dedicated AI Law moves closer to enactment.
