Effective enforcement mechanisms will be crucial to the credibility and success of artificial intelligence regulation, according to a new Omdia analysis examining AI policies and regulatory frameworks across major global markets.

The findings were published in Omdia’s report, AI Regulation: Analysis of Global Policies and Regulatory Frameworks, alongside regional case studies covering the Americas, Asia and Oceania, and Europe.

The research argues that while governments have accelerated efforts to regulate AI, the effectiveness of these frameworks will ultimately depend on how compliance is monitored and enforced.

Enforcement measures for organisations that fail to comply with AI rules should form a core element of any regulatory framework, Omdia said.

“Mechanisms for addressing non-compliance should be a critical element of any AI regulatory framework,” said Sarah McBride, principal analyst for regulation at Omdia.

“Financial penalties are the most common enforcement measure, but some countries have also introduced sanctions including the suspension of services and, in certain cases, imprisonment,” she added.

Under the European Union’s AI Act, organisations can face fines of up to €35 million or 7 per cent of their global annual turnover, equivalent to approximately $41 million.

South Korea’s AI Basic Act allows regulators to impose fines of up to 30 million South Korean won, equivalent to about $20,000, for non-compliance.

Omdia identified seven major challenges that AI regulatory frameworks will need to address as governments develop and implement legislation.

These include safety, privacy, data management and copyright, controllability, ethics, transparency and accountability, security, and collaboration and interoperability.

The company also examined AI policy initiatives introduced around the world, finding that many governments have adopted national AI strategies in an effort to secure a leading position in the global AI economy.

According to the report, these strategies generally focus on supporting AI research and innovation, developing workforce skills, accelerating AI adoption across both the public and private sectors, and strengthening data ecosystems and information and communications technology infrastructure.

“These strategies typically emphasise support for AI research and innovation, building AI skills and workforce capacity, accelerating adoption across public and private sectors, and strengthening data ecosystems and ICT infrastructure,” McBride said.

“AI sovereignty is also becoming an increasingly important priority for governments because of national security and economic considerations,” she added.

Despite the growing number of national AI strategies, dedicated AI legislation remains relatively limited, with only a small number of jurisdictions moving into the implementation phase.

The EU AI Act entered into force in August 2024, with its requirements being introduced gradually through a phased implementation process.

South Korea’s AI Basic Act came into force in January 2026, although regulators have provided a grace period of at least one year before financial penalties for non-compliance begin to apply.

Omdia said the introduction of AI-specific legislation is expected to have a significant operational impact on telecommunications companies in particular, increasing compliance obligations and raising operating costs.

“The main impact of these regulations on telecommunications companies will be additional compliance requirements and higher operational costs,” McBride stated.

“Following the design and adoption of these AI laws, regulators must now focus on implementation through practical operational compliance measures, effective enforcement, and clear guidance for industry,” she concluded.