"2026 AI Compliance White Paper"
This report, released in 2026 by the NEXTAI Intelligent Research Institute of Chery Automobile Co., Ltd., covers AI life-cycle risks, global regulatory matrices, and corporate compliance practices. It aims to establish a governance foundation capable of navigating the "horizontally unified vertically granular" regulatory landscape across 15 jurisdictions, including the EU, China, the US, and South Korea. Core regulatory trends indicate that global AI governance has shifted from the "guidelines" phase to institutionalized strict regulation, with
OECD.AI data showing 2,214 policy and regulatory measures issued across 80 jurisdictions as of February 2026. The report emphasizes that enterprises must construct compliance systems across seven dimensions, including data governance, system reliability and safety (red teaming), transparency and disclosure, internal governance, user redress, and monitoring regulatory movements.
The practice section provides a detailed disclosure of NEXTAI's compliance exploration across nine internal AI scenarios, such as intelligent coding assistants (open-source IP avoidance), smart BOM (Bill of Materials) auditing, parts cost optimization, intelligent talent screening (bias mitigation), and AI-assisted physical simulation (version traceability). By comparing its framework with Microsoftโs "Responsible AI" governance pathโwhich spans six core principles, board-level oversight via cross-functional committees, and automated compliance responsesโChery has attempted to embed compliance into its R&D and production stages through an AI compliance access assessment process. The report highlights that as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) is implemented in phases, prohibited practices could incur fines of up to 35 million Euros or 7% of total global annual turnover, establishing a rigid compliance threshold for export-oriented automakers.
The industry's core challenges are concentrated in four areas: conflicts in copyright and privacy compliance arising from cross-border model operations due to legal heterogeneity; the regulatory lag relative to rapid technological paradigm shifts; the difficulty of embedding compliance management into agile development and full-cycle R&D; and a shortage of professional AI compliance resources. The underlying logic of the report reflects a strategic pivot in the intelligence-driven international expansion of automakers: AI compliance has evolved from a peripheral legal concern into a critical "life-or-death" issue for intelligent vehicle exports. Despite certain OCR errors (such as misidentifying the Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services as the "Cheng Xingdong Law") and the lack of third-party verification for internal case studies, this report serves as a systematically structured reference for AI compliance benchmarking within the domestic automotive sector.
ใKeywordsใ๏ผ
#AICompliance #CheryNEXTAI #EUAIAct #AIAct #AlgorithmRecommendationRegulations #DeepSynthesisRegulations #GenerativeAIInterimMeasures #SouthKoreaAIBasicLaw #DigitalOmnibus #NISTAIRMF #MicrosoftResponsibleAI #RedTeaming #DataPoisoning #AdversarialAttacks #AIHallucinations #ModelDrift #HumanOversight #Traceability #ContentLabeling #AlgorithmFiling #AILiteracy #FullLifeCycleRiskManagement #DataGovernance #ForbiddenAIPractices #AutomotiveIntelligence #CrossBorderCompliance #GDPR #AIGovernance #NEXTAI #DigitalTwin
ใExpert Opinionใ๏ผ
This white paper is the first systematic output regarding AI compliance from a Chinese automaker. Its core value lies in translating the complex regulatory matrix of the EU, China, South Korea, and various US states into a practical "15 jurisdictions ร 6 modules" compliance mapping table. From an investment and industry perspective, the reportโs strategic significance outweighs its technical depth: through this document, Chery NEXTAI (established in June 2024) has effectively submitted its "regulatory exam paper," signaling that it is prepared to confront the EU AI Actโs potential 7% global revenue penalty. This initiative elevates AI compliance to the same priority level as GDPR and Data Security laws within the automotive industry.
However, the report's credibility varies across its sections. Regarding the regulatory framework, its synthesis of OECD statistics, EU AI Act penalty tiers, and legislative progress across various countries is highly authoritative and practical. Conversely, the nine internal AI practice cases are based on self-reported vendor data; they lack third-party audit reports or official EU compliance certifications, making their actual deployment scale and efficacy ใUnverifiedใ. Additionally, the aforementioned OCR error on page 16 reflects a lapse in quality control during the production of the white paper.
Analysis from three expert perspectives:
The Conservative view argues that as a compliance explanation for automotive exports, the report avoids the "high-stakes" compliance challenge of Annex III of the EU AI Actโspecifically autonomous driving systems (e.g., Highway/City NOA, automated parking). By focusing only on internal office and R&D scenarios, it appears to evade the most critical issues, and investors should remain cautious about the actual maturity of the company's compliance reserves.
The Neutral view suggests that the "seven compliance focal points" and the organizational path benchmarked against Microsoft provide a ready-made template for other automakersโsuch as BYD, Geely, NIO, XPeng, and Li Autoโwho have yet to build AI compliance frameworks. Its value lies in filling the void of publicly available benchmarks.
The Radical view points out that this signals a transition into the "second half" of AI compliance for Chinese automakersโa shift from mere legal review to "pre-emptive compliance in intelligent R&D." With the EU enforcement window opening between 2026 and 2027, AI compliance will directly determine whether intelligent driving and vehicle-based AI agents can pass European vehicle certification. Cheryโs preemptive publication is a strategic bid to seize the industry mantle as the "standard-bearer" for automotive AI compliance.
Decision-making implications and blind spot warnings:
For Chery itself, it is imperative to complete compliance audits for intelligent driving systems as soon as possible. As these systems fall under the "High-Risk AI" category (Annex III) of the EU AI Act, the "Human Oversight Traceability Risk Assessment" triad must be mapped to Articles 15, 11, 12, and 17. Failure to do so could transform compliance risk into a total market ban once European delivery volumes scale up.
For other export-oriented automakers like BYD, Geely, and SAIC, the reportโs "horizontally unified vertically granular" logic should be adopted, but they must establish an independent AI compliance assessment system separate from the R&D department to avoid the pitfalls of "self-evaluation and self-usage."
Regarding regulatory research and practice, the legal boundaries for AI models integrated into vehicle systems (e.g., voice assistants, AIGC wallpapers, and deep-reasoning agents) remain a regulatory vacuum in 2026. Ongoing monitoring of specialized interpretations from regulatory authorities is essential. In summary, the white paper reveals a major shift in the logic of automotive compliance: AI compliance is no longer an optional brand enhancement, but a mandatory "passport" for the international expansion of intelligent vehicles.
