An overview of national strategies and policies for immersive technologies

3. Future considerations

3.1. Accounting for the distinctive characteristics of immersive technologies

As outlined in the section on taking a horizontal view, a clear pattern has emerged that policymaking on immersive technologies has thus far placed a strong emphasis on fostering innovation, developing necessary infrastructure and amplifying the potential benefits of these technologies. Policies often hinge on strengthening research ecosystems, supporting SMEs and promoting adoption in specific sectors.

While these policies can accelerate further technological development, they do little to address the distinct and sometimes heightened risks and complexities introduced to societies by immersive technologies (OECD, 2024[8]). These potential risks can stem from large volumes of data collection, potential psychological and physical impacts, and complications around cross-border data governance, among other issues (OECD, 2025[1]). In terms of policymaking specifically targeting immersive technologies, policy principles have directed substantial focus to questions of ethics, safety and digital security, and even within that small set of instruments the principles have focused exclusively on virtual worlds; otherwise, existing policies on digital technologies more broadly cover immersive technologies within their scope, but potential gaps require further assessment.

Given the many distinctive and even unique characteristics of immersive technologies, policymakers may seek to consider policymaking aimed at potential risk mitigation. For example, VR headsets can collect granular biometric data, including facial expressions, eye movements and other nonverbal cues. AR and MR devices have the potential to record bystanders and process data about them without their explicit consent. Such capabilities could create tension with existing data protection frameworks and raise questions about user privacy, digital security and potential misuse—particularly in sensitive areas such as healthcare or children’s engagement with virtual environments.

Moreover, the highly immersive nature of these technologies can amplify traditional online risks. Challenges around manipulated and misleading content, hate speech or manipulative advertising could become more acute in environments where users may not perceive digital content as being digital, where avatars can obscure identities and where AI-driven elements can non-transparently shape user experiences. The risks of motion sickness or psychological effects – such as addiction or social isolation – also underline the need for more robust research, guidelines and technical safeguards (OECD, 2024[8]).

3.2. Conclusions and considerations for further work

Policymakers are encouraged to consider the distinctive or unique aspects of immersive technologies, such as their ability to deliver highly convincing experiences, their collection of a wide variety of data and their functionality connecting the physical and virtual worlds, as they pursue evidence-based policymaking and build user trust and accessibility. Further work on immersive technologies should take stock of these distinctive aspects and evaluate gaps in existing policies related to potential social and economic benefits and risks. Through international co-operation, policymakers can inform themselves with relevant experience and expertise to support and direct the development of immersive technologies. The development of international principles is one pathway for guiding future policymaking towards achieving the technologies’ benefits while framing secure, reliable, and balanced approach to guiding its development.

Supportive measures for developing and applying immersive technologies have already been enacted in more than 20 countries and present policymakers globally with a valuable set of reference points. However, only a few policy instruments introduced to date make explicit the accompanying risks of these technologies, which also merit consideration. Most proposed interventions, such as privacy principles or ethics frameworks, lack enforcement capability.

Over the longer term, as immersive technologies become both more affordable and sophisticated, countries can consider promoting proactive measures that, for example, encourage the implementation of privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs), data minimisation practices or evidence-based child online safety tools. These steps would help ensure that immersive technologies benefit societies as robustly and for all people, while managing the stakes that come with increasingly merging the virtual and physical worlds.

It may be worth further study on whether existing frameworks adequately cover concerns such as privacy, digital security, or ensuring psychological and child safety. While guiding principles or strategies may offer direction to support innovation rather than imposing immediate requirements, achieving those policy aims may also require additional policy approaches. Principles-based guidance that signal longer-term intentions, such as those introduced by Japan and Korea, offer a preliminary vision of the types of frameworks – voluntary or mandatory – that could be introduced in other jurisdictions in the future.

Policymakers would be advised to consider the need for further developing existing policies based on evidence-based approaches to encourage the secure, reliable, and balanced approach and use of immersive technologies. The OECD can support this effort in several ways, including through broad and comprehensive dialogues to understand in greater depth the approaches taken to address specific risk areas in the context of other digital technologies and then map that evidence to experiences with immersive technologies.