There is no legal definition of the term “artificial intelligence” in Hong Kong.

However, the Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence and the Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework, both issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“PCPD”), both refer to artificial intelligence as “a family of technologies that involve the use of computer programmes and machines to mimic the problem-solving and decision-making capabilities of human beings”.

At present, there is no official strategy for artificial intelligence in Hong Kong and there is currently no indication that the Hong Kong Government (“HK Government”) or the legislature intends to enact comprehensive AI legislation in Hong Kong. It is however expected that Hong Kong will closely follow China’s AI strategy (including the “AI Plus” initiative launched by the PRC government in 2024 “to promote the innovative development of digital economy”) to develop China as a global leader in AI.

In the 2025-26 Budget of the HK Government, Financial Secretary Paul Chan stated that the HK Government “will leverage the edge of “One Country, Two Systems” and our internationalised characteristic to develop Hong Kong into an international exchange and co-operation hub for the AI industry.”, outlining a slew of initiatives the HK Government has implemented/is implementing to promote AI development in Hong Kong.

The initiatives introduced by the HK Government include:-

• Launching the New Industrialisation Acceleration Scheme to encourage development of emerging industries including AI and data analytics;
• Establishment of the Generative Artificial Intelligence Sandbox for banks and financial institutions to develop and test AI solutions;
• Establishment of the AI Supercomputer Centre to provide AI supercomputing services;
• Launching a HK$3 billion AI Subsidy Scheme to support private development of AI in Hong Kong;
• Establishment of the Hong Kong AI R&D Institute to promote the use and application of AI in Hong Kong;
• Providing tax incentives for IP-intensive industries;
• Approving over HK$1.4 billion for AI-related projects through the Innovation and Technology Fund;
• Establishment of the Hong Kong Industrial Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Centre under the Hong Kong Productivity Council to focus on the development of industrial AI and robotics technologies and commercialization;
• Conducting a public consultation for proposed reform of copyright law to facilitate AI development
• Establishment of the AI Efficacy Enhancement Team within the government to plan and coordinate governmental departments in applying AI technologies in their work;

Different governmental bodies have developed and published various guidelines and frameworks targeting different applications of AI, which include the Guidance on Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence and the Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework published by the PCPD mentioned in paragraph 1 above.

There is currently no existing law, draft law or legislative initiative dedicated to AI or the regulation of AI in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has implemented various guidelines and frameworks in governing the use of AI in the city. All guidelines are either based on existing laws and regulations (developed prior to the introduction of AI) or are voluntary standards:-

General AI

In July 2024, the Digital Policy Office of the HK Government published the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Framework to facilitate governmental bodies and departments in their planning, design and implementation of AI and big data applications using guiding principles, leading practices, and assessments in AI-powered IT projects.

In April 2025, the Digital Policy Office published the Artificial Intelligence Technical and Application Guideline to provide practical guidelines for technology developers, services providers and users on use of generative AI technology.

Data Privacy Law

As AI often involves the use of data sets containing the personal data of individuals during problem-solving and training, the Privacy (Data) Protection Ordinance (“PDPO”) applies to AI. The PDPO stipulates six data protection principles, which broadly govern the collection, use, protection and treatment of personal data. Anyone creating and operating AI that handles personal data is obliged to always comply with these principles.

The PCPD has in August 2021 issued the Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (“Guidance”) which specifically applies to the use of AI when personal data is used to train or is analysed by an AI system.

The PCPD has also issued the Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework in June 2024 (“Model Framework”), setting out the PCPD’s recommendations and best practices in complying with the legal requirements of the PDPO when implementing and using AI (including generative AI).

In March 2025, the PCPD issued the Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees, setting out guidelines, best practices and practical tips for organisations to develop their internal policies on the use of AI by employees.

In December 2025 the PCPD issued the Abuse of AI Deepfakes: Toolkit for Schools and Parents alerting on the risk posed by AI-generated deepfakes and providing advice on handling incidents involving the same.

Copyright

In late 2024, the Hong Kong Government launched a public consultation on a proposed reform of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) to cater to AI development, with one of the key proposals being the introduction of a text and data mining exemption for copyright infringement for developing AI models (“TDM Exemption”). The consultation concluded in early 2025, but no actual legislative reform has been put forth by the government to date, with multiple copyright owners, including media companies, expressing scepticism over the TDM Exemption.

Financial Regulations

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”) has issued circulars to provide guidance on the use of AI in the banking and financial industries. For example, the HKMA in May 2024 updated its Supervisory Policy Manual in relation to manpower planning and training with the emergence of AI. Financial Institutions are recommended to be vigilant against over-reliance on AI and reminded of their obligation to properly assess the financial capabilities of clients and monitor the design and development of AI applications. Further, the use of AI does not mitigate the financial institutions’ liabilities from the consequences of any conduct, nor should it allow any compromise of proper validation expected from financial institutions.

Other regulatory authorities, such as the Insurance Authority, have also issued similar circulars in relation to the existing regulatory framework as applied to AI.

Healthcare

In January 2024, the Department of Health issued a technical reference document entitled Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices (AI-MD) on the requirements for AI medical devices.

Miscellaneous

Finally, other existing Hong Kong legislation and common law also apply to certain aspects of the use of AI in Hong Kong, for example, tort law (e.g. in relation to product liability), intellectual property rights (e.g. in relation to copyright/patent ownership) and anti-discrimination laws.

Difficulties remain as none of the existing laws is custom-made for AI, and there remain considerable uncertainties and gaps within regulations. For example, the PDPO is only applicable where personal data is collated but not other types of data. There could also be uncertainty and issues in attributing liability (in tort law) and authorship/inventorship (in IP laws) to natural persons for tasks done by AI.

As there are no specific laws or regulations governing the use of AI in Hong Kong, there are no specific legal requirements for artificial intelligence transparency, explainability, or audits. There are also no specific obligations on disclosure of the use of AI.

Note however in both the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Framework published by the Digital Policy Office of the HK Government, “Transparency and Explainability” is considered 1 of the 12 “Ethical AI Principles”. There are thus “best practice expectations” as to transparency, explainability and disclosure of AI use, which are expected to be built into the development process of AI infrastructures.

As there are no specific laws or regulations governing the use of AI in Hong Kong, there are no specific legal requirements as to human oversight and human-in-the-loop for AI systems.

Note however in both the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Framework published by the Digital Policy Office of the HK Government and the Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework published by the PCPD, “human oversight” and “human-in-the-loop” are specified as key measures for mitigating risks of using AI. There are therefore clear best practice expectations that human oversight is necessary to mitigate risks brought by AI use.

Similar requirements are also set out in circulars/guidelines issued by financial institutions. See also the section on “Financial Regulations” under Paragraph 3.

Further, as AI systems lack personhood and cannot be held liable in law (see paragraph 7 below), the persons/companies developing and/or deploying the AI system will very likely be held liable for issues caused by the use of such AI systems, and the lack of human oversight in AI systems would unlikely hold up as a defense. See also Paragraph 7 below.

As there are no specific laws or regulations governing the use of AI in Hong Kong, there are no specific legal requirements to address bias or discrimination.

Note however in both the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Framework published by the Digital Policy Office of the HK Government, “Fairness”, “Diversity and Inclusion” are both considered “Ethical AI Principles”. There are thus “best practice expectations” that bias and discrimination should be addressed when developing or using AI.

Further, failure to address discrimination and bias in AI systems when deploying them may potentially expose AI developers or users to both criminal and civil liabilities under Hong Kong’s various anti-discrimination laws, namely:-

• Sex Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 480)
• Disability Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 487)
• Family Status Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 527)
• Race Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 602)

AI lacks legal personhood to be held liable in law.

Under the principles of the law of the tort, any creator/user of AI is expected to exercise a duty to take reasonable care when creating/using AI.

In terms of negligence, the Hong Kong court will find a creator of AI or user of AI (or both) to be in breach of duty of care if the following elements are satisfied:

• The respondent (i.e. the creator of AI, the user of AI, or both) has reasonably contemplated that the actions to be taken by AI would injure the plaintiff;
• Proximity exists between the respondent and the plaintiff;
• The imposition of a duty of care is just and reasonable; and
• The imposition of a duty of care is consistent with public policy considerations.

In addition, the law of nuisance and the doctrine in Ryland v Fletcher (i.e. if a person keeps something that would likely cause mischief on their property, such person will be liable for any natural consequence flowing from that object’s escape) applies in Hong Kong as well. If any nuisance is caused by AI being defective (e.g. defective self-driving vehicles or autonomous drones), which results in intrusion and nuisance on the neighbour’s property or otherwise hampers the enjoyment of such property, as long as all of the requisite elements of nuisance are satisfied and proved, the court may hold the creator and/or controller of AI liable for nuisance.

Other than the civil liabilities under tort law mentioned above, any person who without lawful excuse destroys or causes any damage to property belonging to another with the intention to do so, or being reckless as to whether the property will be destroyed or damaged, may be charged with criminal damage under section 60 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), with the offender being liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years. If it is proved that the offender has the intention of destroying or causing any damage so as to endanger the life of another or is reckless as to whether the life of another will be endangered, the offender is liable to imprisonment for life.

Damage under this offence is widely defined and covers physical harm that is both permanent and temporary, tangible and intangible, and any injury that impairs the value and usefulness of the property.

The above offences apply to users of AI; therefore, if an AI user commits the offences by using AI, they may be charged with criminal damage and be liable to the respective penalties on top of civil liabilities.

As to who would be held liable for AI-related harms, it depends on the cause of the harm. If the defect is caused by the developer, the developer may be sued and be held liable for negligence. If the harm is caused by usage by a particular user and is not attributable to the creator of the AI system, the liability should be borne by the user. There may also be cases where both the developer and the deployer/user to be found contributorily liable (e.g. if there is fault both in the design and the deployment of AI, or where a user knowingly or negligently deploying defective AI products knowing the risk involved). There may also be circumstances where a developed may be exempt from liability when the harm/fault is solely caused by the deployer (e.g. if a deployer knowingly deploys a defective AI system without the developer’s knowledge or consent or over its objection).

Whether the victim will also be liable depends on the circumstances of each incident. Under tort law, for example, if the harm caused is partly attributed to the victim, it is possible the respondent may not be held fully liable for the harm caused to the victim.

There has been no court decision or legislative development in Hong Kong on civil/criminal liability caused by AI to date.

There are currently no cybersecurity laws specific to AI systems.

Hong Kong’s first cybersecurity law, namely the Protection of Critical Infrastructure (Computer System) Ordinance (Cap. 653) (“PCICSO”), has recently entered into operation on 1 January 2026.

Currently under the PCICSO, computer systems under the following 8 sectors are deemed “Category 1 Critical Infrastructures” that are essential to maintaining the essential functioning of the Hong Kong society.

• Energy;
• Information technology;
•  Banking and financial services;
• Air transport;
• Land transport;
• Maritime transport;
• Healthcare services; and
• Telecommunications and broadcasting services.

Certain statutory obligations are imposed on the operators of such Category 1 Critical Infrastructures to adopt appropriate measures to protect their computer systems and minimize the risk of disruption due to cyberattacks, such as the requirements to have a physical office in Hong Kong and to have computer system security management systems, plans and qualified personnels in place.

If AI are adopted/incorporated in such Critical Infrastructures, the operators are also required to comply with the same statutory requirements under the PCICSO.

The use of AI is insurable in Hong Kong.

Whether a particular use of AI is insured depends on the insurance policy taken out by the relevant AI user. Given that AI is commonly used by entities in Hong Kong to perform key elements of their businesses (such as managing inventory and client accounts), it is anticipated that the existing business-related insurance policies taken out by such entities would have covered the use of AI in the course of business.

At present, the Patents Ordinance (Cap 514) does not recognise non-humans as inventors. There are no case laws or statutory guidelines in Hong Kong concerning inventions generated by AI.

It is likely that Hong Kong courts will adopt the position in other common law jurisdictions, particularly the UK, that AI does not have the necessary personhood to be named as an inventor in a patent application (Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49, UK Supreme Court decision issued on 20 December 2023), where it was held that (i) an AI cannot be an inventor as only natural persons can be inventors under existing patent laws; and (ii) inventorship cannot be passed from the AI system to its owner by virtue of the owner’s ownership in the AI system.

The answer is uncertain.

Images generated by and with AI could in theory fall under copyright protection in Hong Kong as it falls within the definition of graphic work and artistic work under section 5 of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap 528). Unlike jurisdictions like the US where there are express court/tribunal decisions disqualifying AI-generated work from copyright protection on the grounds that the work was not created by a human author, section 11(3) of the Copyright Ordinance could potentially allow such AI-generated work to be protected by copyright by attributing authorship to “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” (the “Necessary Arranger Provision”).

Applying the Necessary Arranger Provision, if the image in question is generated by AI without human interference, it is possible that the programmer of AI and/or any other person whose contribution is proved to be necessary for the creation of the image will be attributed authorship (and thus copyright ownership) of such image. If, however, the image is created by a person using AI, in theory, the human creator, the programmer of AI and/or also any other person whose contribution is proved to be necessary for the creation of the image should be entitled to claim authorship of such image.

In the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Public Consultation Paper issued by the HK Government in July 2024, it is the HK Government’s position that the Necessary Arranger Provision provides “the necessary backbone for copyright protection of AI-generated works” and “provide long-standing copyright protection to (AI—generated work)”

Note that there is, however, currently no case law in Hong Kong or other common law jurisdictions with similar provisions in their copyright legislation (such as the UK), as to how the Necessary Arranger Provision operates in relation to AI-generated work, particularly since multiple persons (users, programmers, authors of training data) will be involved in making the necessary arrangements. This difficulty was acknowledged by the HK Government in the aforementioned consultation paper, but the HK Government considers this to be “fact-and-evidence sensitive (exercise), requiring determinations to be made on a case-by case basis”, seemingly deferring the question to be resolved in courts. It should also be noted that the UK also conducted a similar consultation regarding the UK equivalent of the Necessary Arranger Provision in 2025/26, which concluded that the there were no evidence that the UK equivalent of the Necessary Arranger Provision has “ongoing value” and the provision “would cause confusion”. The UK Government is in favour of removing the UK equivalent of the Necessary Arranger Provision altogether.

Businesses in Hong Kong are increasingly reliant on AI in daily operations and delivery of services to clients. Examples include managing the personal data of staff or potential candidates for human resources purposes, maintaining client accounts, setting up manufacturing procedures, handling account matters, and addressing clients’ enquiries.

Apart from the data privacy issues to be discussed in paragraph 13 below, the use of AI does not exempt the company using AI in its operations from being liable for damage to property or personal injury caused by AI. As such, contractually, if a party fails to perform any contract due to mistakes and errors caused by the malfunctioning or breakdown of AI, that party is still in breach of the contract in question.

Another issue that may be caused by reliance of AI in the workplace is the potential bias and discrimination that AI may cause. For example, in the context of recruitment, candidates may be exposed to AI-induced biases and discrimination. There are reports that AI recruitment tools have discriminated against female candidates, as the historical data learned by the system mostly came from men’s resumes. Please also refer to paragraph 6 above.

Further, as mentioned in paragraph 3 above, the PCPD issued the Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees in March 2025, recommending employers/organisations to develop internal policies on employees’ use of AI in workplace, setting out recommendations based on (i) personal data privacy protection; (ii) lawful and ethical use; (iii) prevention of bias and discrimination; (iv) data security.

In light of the fact that AI’s capabilities are to a large extent driven by collection, analysis and application of data (which, more often than not, includes personal data), business users of AI may tend to take a more aggressive approach when collecting personal data of customers, which increases the risks of data subjects being exposed to excessive, unjustified, and perhaps unauthorised mass data collection. For example, data pertaining to consumer activities, both online and offline, are tracked to help AI make predictions.

In addition, after analysing and matching the massive data collected from different datasets, AI may even be able to generate dossiers for individual data subjects which may be used for purposes other than those for which the personal data is collected in the first place.

Another common risk is the leakage of personal data. Given that the data collected needs to be stored and maintained (very likely in cloud servers), the data is exposed to potential security breaches, hacking, wrongful manipulation of data and other forms of misuse of data or other forms of cyberattack by a third party.

Please also refer to paragraph 3 above on the guidelines issued by the PCPD.

For data privacy, data scraping of personal data is governed by the Privacy (Data) Protection Ordinance. Please refer to paragraph 3 above. In essence, there is no blanket ban on data scraping for personal data, but there is also no special treatment for personal data collated via data scraping. Personal data collated via data scraping will need to be processed, stored and used just the same as personal data collected by other means, adopting the same data protection principles under the Privacy (Data) Protection Ordinance.

In terms of IP, there are currently no legislative provisions specific to data scraping under any of the existing IP legislation. However, in the Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Public Consultation Paper issued by the HK Government in July 2024, the HK Government signaled that it intended introduce certain data mining exception to the Copyright Ordinance (i.e. expressly specifying that data scraping would not constitute copyright infringement). The government is minded to introduce certain safeguards provisions for the data scraping exemption, such as an opt-out option and/or restriction on dealing with copies of data collated via data scraping. Whether such an exemption will ultimately be added and, if so, the exact permutation of the provisions, are still unknown as no legislative proposal has been published to date.

In relation to competition law, there is no development in Hong Kong specific to AI. The Hong Kong Competition Commission, the main competition law authorities in Hong Kong, has yet to publish AI-specific guidelines or adjudicate on AI-related cases.

See answer to paragraph 13 above. In essence, there is no specific prohibition against data scraping in law. Restriction against data scraping of certain material (e.g. personal data; copyright materials) are regulated by existing laws (including contract laws) and existing enforcement mechanism (e.g. infringement proceedings in courts). In terms of copyright law, data scraping may, in theory, be considered copyright infringement as there is no specific exemption for data scraping under the Copyright Ordinance.

There are no legal provisions or enforceable mechanisms for “opting out” of data scraping, again, as there are exemptions allowing for data scraping in the first place. Restriction of data scraping is largely conducted via technical means, such as incorporating crawler-blocking bots on websites.

Hong Kong does not currently have any regulator or authority that is specifically dedicated to monitoring the use of AI. The use of AI is generally regulated through guidelines and principles of various bodies, as set out in paragraph 3 above.

In the absence of AI law and specific AI regulatory authorities in Hong Kong, the PCPD (the data privacy authorities in Hong Kong) is seemingly taking the lead on AI “regulation”, issuing various guidelines and educational resources on AI (see paragraphs. 3 and 14 above), setting up an AI security hotline and organizing various talks and seminars on AI-related issues, even on topics that are not directly related to personal data and even though the statutory mandate the PCPD has does not cover issues not related to personal data.

While AI is increasingly used by companies and organisations in Hong Kong, it is currently mainly used to power chatbots and marketing analytics to improve customer experience. It is reported that a handful of shopping malls or commercial buildings adopt AI for building management purposes, such as disinfecting and sanitising public areas. Autonomous vehicles are not yet roadworthy as such, but trials have been allowed.

The potential of AI has not been fully explored in Hong Kong but is developing. Still, the potential benefits brought about by using AI are apparent, more businesses are moving to integrate AI into their daily operations to save costs and increase efficiency.

In February 2025, The PCPD conducted a round of compliance check covering 60 local organisations in Hong Kong covering various sectors in Hong Kong and found that 48 (80%) of respondents have used AI in their day-to-day operation. AI systems were primarily applied in areas such as customer service, marketing, administrative support, compliance/risk management, and research and development, with the top area of adoption being customer service.

In April 2025, the Hong Kong Institute for Monetary and Financial Research issued a report entitled “Financial Services in the Era of Generative AI: Facilitating Responsible Adoption”, which finds that the adoption of AI is progressing steadily across the financial services industry in Hong Kong, with 75% of the surveyed financial institutions have already implemented at least one AI use case, or are currently piloting and designing use cases and exploring potential investment areas. This ratio is expected to increase to 87% within the next three to five years.

The legal sector has started to embrace AI to increase efficiency and reduce costs. While some law firms develop in-house tailor-made AI tools, others turn to experts in this area for their services. Magic circle firms are among the forerunners of the use of AI in legal work.

International firms are reported to have started to automate drafting of documents and conducting research through Harvey, the generative AI built on Open AI’s GPT AI, specifically targeting law firms as its client base. The legal research company Casetext also launched its AI legal assistant (now acquired by Thomson Reuters) CoCounsel using GPT-4 to expedite tasks such as research and document review.

That said, generative AI has its limits. The content generated by AI is largely based on previous advice, research and/or documents, so AI may not be suitable for high-level strategic work that requires a fair amount of critical thinking or handling complicated scenarios (e.g. those involving ethical issues). Current AI algorithms appear to be incapable of understanding truth and meaning, thus giving rise to the phenomenon of “hallucinations” – AI algorithms making up things (such as non-existent case laws). The increasing use of AI in law firms allows lawyers to focus on work that actually requires skills such as conducting negotiations, although this would not save time as a lawyer would still have to review the generated product to ensure it is proper and accurate.

On 20 January 2024, the Law Society of Hong Kong (the professional association of solicitors in Hong Kong with statutory powers to regulate the professional conduct of solicitors) issued a Position Paper on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Legal Profession, setting out current trends of use of AI in the legal profession and concerns arising therefrom, emphasizing that lawyers’ professional, ethical duties and values should not change with the adoption of AI.

The key challenges and opportunities associated with AI for lawyers in Hong Kong are as follows: –

Challenges

• While AI is able to review and analyse voluminous case laws and other documents in a split second, the product generated by AI is also highly dependent on the quantity and quality of materials in its database. That means AI built on a biased or incomplete database or inherently faulty algorithms may generate inaccurate results. This issue may be further amplified in the legal sector, where the pool of data used for AI training would be smaller.

• Depending on the quality of AI systems and the nature of tasks AI is assigned, the effort required of lawyers to review the products generated by AI to ensure they are proper and accurate and to communicate the products to clients effectively and empathetically may not always substantially increase the efficiency of work and reduce costs.

• AI operates on the prompts and instructions from human users. Lawyers and staff using AI need proper training to use the AI tools properly and effectively and to maximise the benefits brought about by the use of AI. Due to the phenomenon of “hallucinations”, lawyers and staff will also need to incur extra costs in verifying data generated by AI. Errors made by AI may also be more difficult to spot.

• Security and maintenance of AI and databases are very important, even more so in the legal sector given the sheer volume of privileged and confidential material accessed and kept by law firms. Ensuring AI and databases are safe and secure could mean additional costs and effort for law firms. Firms will also need to ensure that clients’ confidential data is not used in AI training, meaning not all AI products in the market is suitable for use by law firms.

• There may be costs pressure to law firms as clients may expect a reduction in legal costs with adoption of certain AI measures.

Opportunities

• More mundane tasks can now be automated through the use of AI which would allow lawyers to focus on tasks that cannot be performed by AI, including high-level strategic tasks and client management.

• AI works around the clock and does not take leave. As computational capabilities advance, AI will be able to work faster. This could substantially increase the productivity of law firms using AI.

• AI is driven by data and is technically not prone to human error.

• Maintaining AI may be cheaper than employing human staff. Using AI may, therefore, reduce the costs of practising law and bring down the costs of legal services to the benefit of society as a whole.

• AI is programmed to learn from archives and experience. The more frequently an AI model is used, the better and more reliable the products it will be able to generate.

Currently, the regulatory landscape in Hong Kong is rather light when it comes to AI, and it is not expected to change in the near future. There is no overarching legislation regulating the use of AI, and there does not currently appear to be a legislative plan for one. The existing guidelines and principles mainly provide guidance on the use of personal data.

In light of the Hong Kong government’s commitment to develop AI-related industries in the future in line with China’s national strategy, it can be expected legal developments in AI in Hong Kong in the next 12 months will mainly consist of soft laws and policy guidelines in various areas where AI is used (after consultation with stakeholders and the community), instead of legislating for a comprehensive AI law.

There is no ongoing initiative that would likely reshape AI governance.