South Korea's AI Basic Act and its labelling duty

A reliable secondary source carries it, and the primary document could not be reached. Printed with this label, never as verified.

Record ID

CPS-2026-0022

Kind

Binding law

Jurisdiction

South Korea

Last verified

15 September 2026

Added

15 September 2026

• The United States Department of Commerce reports that the Act and its Enforcement Decree "took effect on January 22, 2026", combining industrial promotion with baseline obligations for trust, safety, transparency and user protection.
• The same account states that providers using high impact AI or generative AI must notify users in advance that AI is being used.
• It reports that in service uses such as chatbots, games or metaverse environments may allow flexible disclosure through interface notices, while exported synthetic content is expected to carry clearer labelling or identification.
• It notes that the ministry operates a help desk through the Korea Software Industry Association and has issued guidelines including one on generative AI transparency.
• The Korean national law information centre returned no English text of the Act on the date of this check, which is why the verdict is reported and not verified.

Embeds a mark or manifest, Displays or verifies, What it requires. Stated means the document you can open below says it; silent means the ledger read the document and it does not.

Embeds a mark or manifestReported

Reported to require identification on exported synthetic content; the mechanism is not verified here.South Korea AI Basic Act, International Trade Administration, secondary source, 15 September 2026.

Displays or verifiesReported

Reported to allow interface level notices for in service interactive uses such as chatbots.South Korea AI Basic Act, International Trade Administration, secondary source, 15 September 2026.

What it requiresReported

Reported: advance notification that AI is in use, and labelling where output is hard to tell from non AI content.South Korea AI Basic Act, International Trade Administration, secondary source, 15 September 2026.

Treat this as a flag to get local advice, not as a rule to code against. The distinction the secondary account draws, between an interface notice for an interactive service and a mark carried by exported content, is the one that will decide whether your product needs a watermark or only a banner, and that is exactly the kind of line that a translation can blur. Ask Korean counsel for the operative article before you build.

1. South Korea AI Basic Act, International Trade AdministrationSecondary · 15 September 2026
2. AI Basic Act Update: Enforcement and Key Implications, Shin and KimSecondary · 15 September 2026

• VerifiedBinding lawCPS-2026-0021

  China's Measures for Labelling AI Generated Synthetic Content

  China · verified 15 September 2026

  Article 5 requires service providers to add an implicit label in the file metadata of generated synthetic content, carrying attribute information, the provider's name or code and a content number.

• VerifiedBinding lawCPS-2026-0018

  EU AI Act Article 50(2): machine readable marking

  European Union · verified 15 September 2026

  The text reads that providers "shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated".