AI View October 2026

Welcome to AI View, Simmons & Simmons' fortnightly round-up of key AI legislative, regulatory, and policy updates from around the world.

This edition brings you:

1. Bank of England governor says testing frontier AI should come before regulation

2. European Commission opens consultation on use of copyright-protected content in AI

3. European Commission opens consultation on draft EU Kids Act for child online safety

4. Singapore’s monetary authority sets AI risk guidelines for financial institutions

5. California retains ‘Artificial Intelligence’ terminology while US federal government orders adoption of ‘Super Intelligence’ in official use

6. US lawmaker proposes federal charter system for AI companies

7. IMF official says new AI regulation may be needed to counter cyber risks

8. Australian privacy regulator publishes guidance on transparency for AI and automated decision-making

1. Bank of England governor says testing frontier AI should come before regulation

On 30 September 2026, Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, published a statement entitled “Frontier AI and the question of governance”, addressing the challenges posed by increasingly capable frontier AI systems.

While recognising the risks associated with frontier AI, the statement argues that policymakers should focus first on understanding the governance challenges these systems present, rather than beginning with regulation.

Among other things, Bailey:

• distinguishes frontier AI because of its ability to learn from and improve upon its own outputs;
• warns that highly capable systems may become increasingly difficult for humans to oversee and influence;
• argues that maintaining the ability to intervene and set boundaries should be a central objective of AI governance; and
• highlights the importance of understanding and testing frontier models before determining what regulatory measures may be necessary.

The statement also emphasises the significant benefits of frontier AI including productivity gains and economic growth, and recommends learning “through experience and adaptation” rather than immediate regulation restricting development of the technology.

Read the full statement here.

2. European Commission opens consultation on use of copyright-protected content in AI

On 29 September 2026, the European Commission launched a consultation examining the impact of technological developments, including AI, on copyright protection and related rights. The consultation follows earlier evidence-gathering and considers whether the EU copyright framework should be reinforced through additional measures.

The Commission invites responses from rights holders, generative AI providers and other participants in the AI value chain, intermediaries, research organisations, public authorities, consumer organisations and civil society.

The consultation covers a range of topics, covering online piracy, scientific research and remuneration for non-EU nationals, as well as generative AI. In the AI context, the consultation seeks views on the use of copyright-protected data for training; licensing and remuneration; and the enforcement of rights in protected content.

The consultation paper also requests input on AI-generated imitations of performers and whether performers’ voices or likenesses should be protected by copyright or other EU initiatives.

The consultation is open until 3 November 2026.

Read the press release here and consultation paper here.

3. European Commission opens consultation on draft EU Kids Act for child online safety

On 2 October 2026, the European Commission opened a consultation on the proposed EU Kids Act, an initiative focused on protecting children in online environments. The initiative sits within the Commission’s wider work on online safety and the design of digital services used by children.

The consultation is intended to gather views on the proposed initiative, including its scope and the measures that may be required to support a safer online environment for children.

Although the initiative is broader than AI, it is relevant to providers of AI-enabled services and digital platforms where technologies such as recommendation systems, chatbots or generative AI tools are made available to, or may affect, children. [S2.1]

The proposed Act would:

• restrict children under the age of 15 from creating their own social media accounts, with exceptions for child-friendly accounts managed by their guardians;
• require providers to limit harmful mechanics including infinite scrolling, push notifications during sleeping hours, and unsolicited contact with strangers;
• require providers to verify the age of new users, e.g. through the EU age verification app, and for existing users, estimate age using available data (e.g. credit card details); and
• introduce new obligations for large online platforms, including independent audits, responding to auditor recommendations and submitting a compliance plan to the Commission.

The consultation is open until 26 November 2026.

Read the Regulation proposal and consultation paper here.

4. Singapore's monetary authority sets AI risk guidelines for financial institutions

On 7 October 2026, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) published its Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Risk Management. The Guidelines set out supervisory expectations for financial institutions (FIs) using AI, applying broadly to all FIs and forms of AI technology.

The Guidelines expect FIs to:

• strengthen oversight of AI risks with clear risk management frameworks, which may be achieved without a dedicated AI committee;
• identify and understand AI usage across their organisation, including by maintaining an inventory of AI usage; and
• be accountable for third-party AI usage, opting to limit AI usage where risk cannot be adequately managed.

The MAS emphasises that the Guidelines should be adopted in a risk-proportionate manner, and existing governance structures may be adequate oversight. Risk should be considered in the context of material impact to customers and stakeholders.

The Guidelines take effect on 7 October 2027. Deadlines for compliance with the expectations are set out in phases, the final deadline being 7 October 2028.

Read the Guidelines here.

5. California retains ‘Artificial Intelligence’ terminology while US federal government orders adoption of ‘Super Intelligence’ in official use

On 29 September 2026, the White House issued Executive Order 14434 directing the use of the term “Super Intelligence” by federal executive departments and agencies in “official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, policy documents, and other non-statutory documents”, in place of “Artificial Intelligence” or “AI”. The Executive Order also requires the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology to develop proposed legislative language to amend existing statutory references to “AI”.

On 30 September 2026, California responded by issuing Executive Order N-10-26 retaining the term “Artificial Intelligence” for its state agencies.

Both measures concern official terminology rather than substantive AI regulation.

Read the White House Executive 14434 Order here, and California Executive Order N-10-26 here.

6. US lawmaker proposes federal charter system for AI companies

On 1 October 2026, US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal published a framework for a proposed National AI Charter Act, [Author3.1]which would require AI companies operating in the United States to obtain a federal charter.

The proposed framework includes:

• a requirement for every AI company to hold a national charter to operate in the United States;
• ongoing federal oversight and mandatory safety and public-interest requirements;
• pre-release testing and approval mechanisms modelled on controls used in high-risk sectors;
• structural restrictions intended to address market concentration, surveillance business models and conflicts of interest; and
• powers to withdraw authorisation from companies that fail to comply with charter conditions.

The framework is modelled in part on the national bank supervision system, and is intended to shift oversight towards authorisation and intervention before harm occurs, rather than relying primarily on post-deployment enforcement.

The National AI Charter Act proposed by the framework has not yet been formally introduced as a bill in Congress.

Read the framework here.

7. IMF official says new AI regulation may be needed to counter cyber risks

On 28 September 2026, Dan Katz, First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, delivered remarks at Sibos 2026 on how AI may reshape payment systems and financial infrastructure, and policymakers’ responses to novel AI risks.

Katz said the current payments system was not built for autonomous agents operating continuously and at scale, but noted the substantial potential benefits of increased agentic adoption, including reducing information friction, automation of complex transactions, and lowering regulatory and reporting costs, suggesting that these benefits may be most evident in the context of cross-border payments.

He highlighted the accompanying policy and risk considerations and discussed how to ensure interventions remain proportionate and innovation-friendly, including:

• the need for more digital, interoperable financial infrastructure;
• cyber risks arising from AI-enabled discovery and exploitation of vulnerabilities; and
• the need for proportionate and internationally coordinated policy responses where market failures are demonstrated.

Read the full speech here.

8. Australian privacy regulator publishes guidance on transparency for AI and automated decision-making

On 30 September 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published resources to support compliance with new transparency requirements for automated decision-making introduced by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024.

The requirements take effect on 10 December 2026 and apply where an entity bound by the Australian Privacy Principles has arranged for a computer program to make, or “substantially and directly” inform, a decision that could “significantly affect” an individual’s rights or interests, using that individual’s personal information.

Where the requirements apply, an entity’s privacy policy must describe:

• the kinds of personal information used by the computer program;
• the kinds of decisions made solely by the program; and
• the kinds of decisions for which the program does something substantially and directly related to making the decision.

The OAIC’s guidance confirms that the obligation can extend to rule-based processes, AI and machine learning systems, software, apps, and generative AI tools. It may also apply where a program informs only part of a decision-making process or its output is subject to human review.

Read the OAIC announcement here and transparency obligation factsheet here.