The OECD.AI Policy Navigator

Our policy navigator is a living repository from more than 80 jurisdictions and organisations. Use the filters to browse initiatives and find what you are looking for.

Korea Digital Inclusion Act


Added by:   OECD analyst
Added on:   16 Oct 2026
Updated by:   OECD analyst
Updated on:   16 Oct 2026

The Digital Inclusion Act of Korea is a national law that ensures all people can access and use digital and AI-based public services without discrimination or exclusion. It was introduced in response to growing digital and AI adoption that has created barriers for older persons, persons with disabilities and others with limited digital skills. The Act requires the government to plan, assess and improve digital services so that no one is left behind.

Name in original language

디지털포용법

Initiative overview

The Digital Inclusion Act of Korea establishes a comprehensive legal framework to ensure that all people can benefit from digital and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies without discrimination or exclusion. As digital and AI-based systems have become central to public administration and service delivery, gaps in access, skills, and usability have created new forms of inequality, particularly affecting older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants, and individuals with limited digital experience. 

To address these challenges, the Act defines digital inclusion as a shared responsibility of government and society and sets out clear obligations for national and local authorities. It requires the development of multi-year national plans and annual implementation plans to systematically reduce digital barriers and strengthen digital capabilities across the population. This planning framework enables coordinated action across ministries, levels of government, and policy sectors. 

A key feature of the Act is the introduction of a Digital Inclusion Impact Assessment. Public authorities are required to assess whether new or significantly modified digital and AI-based services, products, or policies may create barriers for digitally vulnerable groups. When risks are identified, authorities are encouraged to take corrective actions at an early stage. This mechanism supports the prevention of exclusion before harms occur and aligns with international discussions on trustworthy and human-centred AI. 

The Act also strengthens accessibility requirements for digital and AI-enabled public services. It includes certification schemes and incentives to promote accessible digital products and services, as well as mandatory accessibility measures for self-service technologies such as kiosks. These provisions aim to ensure that digital transformation in government does not disadvantage people who rely on alternative formats, assistive technologies, or human support. 

Beyond public service delivery, the Act promotes the development and scaling of digital inclusion technologies. It supports research and development, standardization, professional training, and international cooperation related to inclusive digital and AI solutions. By linking social inclusion goals with innovation and industry development, the Act provides a sustainable foundation for inclusive digital transformation. 

Through its legal basis, implementation mechanisms, and preventive approach, the Digital Inclusion Act offers a replicable policy and governance model for governments seeking to advance inclusive and trustworthy AI adoption in the public sector.

Other relevant details

Results, outcomes and impacts: The Digital Inclusion Act entered into force in January 22, 2026, establishing a binding legal basis for integrating inclusion into digital and AI-based public services. Since its entry into force, government institutions have begun implementing national and annual action plans and operationalising procedures for Digital Inclusion Impact Assessments. These early measures support the systematic identification of barriers affecting digitally vulnerable groups before new services are deployed. The Act is expected to improve accessibility and usability of public services, increase digital participation, and strengthen public trust in digital and AI-enabled government, particularly among older persons and persons with disabilities. Challenges and lessons learned: Designing and implementing the Digital Inclusion Act involved several practical challenges. A central task was moving beyond a narrow focus on “digital divides” toward a broader inclusion framework for the entire population, while still prioritizing digitally vulnerable groups. This required clear legal definitions and coordination across ministries and levels of government. Another challenge was integrating inclusion into fast-evolving digital and AI services without hindering innovation. The Digital Inclusion Impact Assessment demonstrated the value of proportionate, risk-based approaches that identify barriers early rather than correcting them later. A key lesson is that legal frameworks can make inclusion a standard requirement in digital government. Clear responsibilities, planning tools, and preventive mechanisms help align inclusion with digital and AI innovation policies. Additional insight: The Korea Digital Inclusion Act complements existing AI and digital government strategies by providing a legal foundation that ensures inclusion is considered throughout the lifecycle of digital and AI-based public services. Rather than regulating specific technologies, the Act establishes cross-cutting governance mechanisms that apply to a wide range of digital and AI applications in the public sector. In particular, the Digital Inclusion Impact Assessment offers a practical tool for integrating human-centred and trustworthy AI principles into policy design and service delivery. By requiring public authorities to identify potential barriers at an early stage, the Act supports a preventive and proportionate approach to risk management and helps avoid exclusion before harms occur. The Act also reflects a shift from policy declarations toward enforceable implementation. Through binding obligations, planning requirements, accessibility standards, and clearly defined responsibilities for public and private actors, it translates inclusion principles into operational practice. This approach may be relevant for governments seeking to move from high-level AI ethics frameworks to concrete institutional arrangements.