By Emmanuel Mounier, Secretary General, Global Travel Tech.
Introduction – The tree and the forest
The biggest AI headlines are, for obvious reasons, coming from the United States. The investments in new data centres and the latest Nvidia chips are enormous, the pace of adoption is fast, and the US federal administration is taking a hands-off approach, championing ambition and innovation in the hope that the “Magnificent Seven” will beat their international competitors and win the AI race. This is set against the backdrop of Brussels, where its AI Act is often framed as a flagship policy achievement. The contrast is convenient: the US builds, creates, and invests; whereas the EU regulates.
But while attention remains largely fixed on this transatlantic divide,” AI regulation is rapidly spreading across the Asia-Pacific region. Governments in the region are moving from principles to operational regulation, keeping a focus on safety, accountability, transparency, and enforceability.
What APAC is doing, fast
South Korea has already introduced a comprehensive AI framework law that will come into force in 2026. This law introduces governance structures for high-impact AI systems and tightens up transparency and accountability requirements. It’s not about banning technology, but about systematic risk management and responsibility.
Singapore remains at the forefront of operational AI regulation. Its Model AI Governance Framework has evolved to include increasingly autonomous or “agentic” AI systems, which refer to systems that are capable of autonomous decision-making and action. Again, the focus is on operational controls: documentation, accountability, and human oversight.
In India, the government is considering a techno-legal approach to AI governance that aims to integrate protection into the design of AI systems themselves. This is an attempt to be proactive, building safeguards into the systems at the design phase rather than attempting to limit them in retrospect, when it may already be too late.
Furthermore, Indonesia has proposed watermarking and labelling obligations for AI-generated content. In consumer-facing markets, transparency around synthetic content is becoming an important policy expectation to combat AI-generated misinformation and other forms of harmful content on social media, but also to protect creators’ rights, including royalties and copyright.
Collectively, these developments indicate that AI governance in APAC is rapidly going from theory into practice.
Why travel distribution is impacted
Online travel distribution sits directly at the intersection of these governance themes. AI already shapes how travellers discover options through ranking algorithms and recommendation engines. It influences pricing and personalisation. It powers customer service chat systems and supports fraud prevention tools. Increasingly, AI assistants are becoming the entry point for travel planning itself.
When frameworks emphasise transparency, accountability, and fairness, these tenets apply directly to travel markets. How rankings are disclosed. How personalised pricing is communicated. How accountability is assigned when automated systems act on behalf of consumers. How synthetic content is labelled. These are not theoretical considerations. They directly affect competition and consumer trust.
What “good governance” looks like for travel AI
The travel sector does not benefit from regulatory vacuums. Nor does it benefit from blanket restrictions. Effective governance of travel AI needs to be risk-proportionate, distinguishing between low-risk tools and high-risk systems that significantly impact consumer choice or transactions. It needs to ensure that accountability is clear throughout the distribution chain, from suppliers to platforms to tech companies. It needs to focus on providing substantial transparency for consumers without burdening them with unnecessary technicalities. And it needs to encourage interoperability to prevent fragmentation across different jurisdictions. Fragmented compliance regimes risk creating disproportionate burdens for smaller travel platforms operating across borders.
Proportionate rules can strengthen markets. Overlapping or conflicting ones can undermine them.
Conclusion – Travel tech wants to help write the rules
Travel technology companies operate across borders. They rely on trust, transparency, and open competition. Regulating AI is a legitimate conversation, and Global Travel Tech wants to be part of it. AI regulations must be effective and targeted. The aim should not be to slow innovation, but instead focus on ensuring safety, consumer protection, and trust in the industry.
If AI is going to continue to shape how travellers discover and book services, governance must be practical and interoperable across regions. Our industry, and many others, must strike a balance between innovation and growth on one hand, and addressing real concerns on the other. While our attention has largely been drawn to the ChatGPTs, Claudes, and Geminis of the West, it’s just as important to take a step back and see what is happening in other regions. The regulatory frameworks shaped today in APAC might prove just as consequential as the race for AI supremacy.