AI Laws in Binghamton, New York
AI Laws USA tracks 52 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Binghamton, New York: 10+ federal rules, 41 New York state-level rules, and 1 local Binghamton ordinance. Coverage is strongest on automated decision-making, government use of AI, consumer protection, and deepfakes. 27 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Binghamton local AI rules (and Broome County)
1 local AI rule specific to Binghamton, New York or Broome County.
-
Proposed / pending
Binghamton NY Flock termination legislation (in committee, Jul. 2026)
Binghamton, NY · Binghamton, NY City Council legislation to terminate Flock Safety contract, referred to committee July 13, 2026 (Cnclw. Rathmell)
A Binghamton, New York city councilwoman has introduced legislation to terminate the city's contract with Flock Safety, whose license plate reader cameras operate in the city. The measure, sponsored by Councilwoman Rathmell, was referred to committee on July 13, 2026 and awaits further action. If enacted, Binghamton would join the growing list of cities ending Flock contracts in 2026.
New York-level AI rules most relevant to Binghamton
41 New York state rules apply to residents and businesses in Binghamton. Showing the 8 most relevant to Binghamton's local picture; 33 more are on the New York jurisdiction page.
-
Proposed / pending
MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monito
New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) · MTA AI Video Analytics Solicitation for Subway Camera Monitoring (Suspicious/Problematic Behavior Detection)
The MTA solicited vendors for AI computer-vision software to analyze feeds from its 15,000+ subway cameras to flag weapons, unattended items, and dangerous behavior, while stating facial recognition will not be used.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-
New York · Effective January 8, 2024 · Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (NYS-P24-001)
New York's Office of Information Technology Services set enterprise rules requiring state agencies to conduct NIST-based risk assessments, maintain human oversight of AI decisions affecting the public, and disclose AI chatbots as non-human.
-
In effect Strength: limited
SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy
State University of New York (SUNY) · Effective April 30, 2026 · SUNY Systemwide Artificial Intelligence Policy
SUNY's Board of Trustees approved a systemwide AI policy requiring all 64 campuses to adopt AI governance, bias evaluation, data-privacy safeguards, and heightened oversight of high-risk systems affecting students by December 31, 2026.
-
In effect Strength: limited
SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemw
State University of New York (SUNY) · Effective May 9, 2024 · SUNY generative-AI education initiative (Empire AI / systemwide AI chatbot program)
New York and SUNY launched a systemwide generative-AI education program described as the largest LLM-enabled education system, providing customized tutoring while pledging to protect privacy and academic integrity.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
NYDFS CL 7 (2024) — Insurance AI Anti-Discrimination
New York · Effective July 11, 2024 · NYDFS Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 (2024) (July 11, 2024)
New York's Department of Financial Services issued Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 on July 11, 2024, establishing the most substantive state insurance AI rule in the country. Going beyond the NAIC Model Bulletin adopted by 24+ states, NYDFS CL No. 7 requires insurers to conduct a comprehensive 'proxy assessment' before using any AI system (AIS) or external consumer data source (ECDIS) in underwriting or pricing — and prohibits any such use unless the insurer can demonstrate the system does not produce unfair or unlawful discrimination against protected classes. When an AI-influenced adverse underwriting decision is made, the insurer must provide written notice within 15 days of the decision. Governance, documentation, and DFS market-conduct examination requirements apply immediately.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
NY PSC utility AI inquiry (Case 26-M-0552)
New York · Enacted September 17, 2026 · N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, Case 26-M-0552, Order Instituting Proceeding on Utility Use of Artificial Intelligence (Sept. 17, 2026 session)
New York's Public Service Commission ordered the state's regulated utilities to file a complete inventory of how they use artificial intelligence and to disclose the policies and procedures that govern it. The commission said AI systems can hallucinate, show bias, have privacy and cybersecurity problems, and create growing dependency on AI vendors, which could threaten the safety and reliability of critical infrastructure. Utilities must file an initial inventory within 60 days and report twice a year after that, and the commission will judge their safeguards against common AI governance frameworks.
-
In effect Strength: limited
NY AV testing pilot
New York · Effective April 20, 2017 · Part FF, Ch. 55, Laws of 2017 (uncodified session law)
New York requires AV operators to obtain DMV pilot-program authorization, maintain a licensed human safety driver behind the wheel, post a $5 million insurance bond, and coordinate with State Police for each test deployment. New York remains one of the most restrictive states — fully driverless operation is not authorized as of 2026.
-
In effect Strength: limited
New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (personalized prices need a label)
New York · Effective November 10, 2025 · N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349-A (art. 22-A)
If a business sets the price of a product or service using an algorithm that draws on your personal data, and then shows that personalized price to you as a New York consumer, it has to tell you so with the notice: 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' The goal is to make personalized 'surveillance pricing' visible rather than hidden. The Attorney General enforces the rule and can seek up to $1,000 per violation after a cease-and-desist notice.
Federal AI rules that apply in Binghamton, New York
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Binghamton, New York. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
TVA data center capacity commitment charge (2026)
Tennessee Valley Authority · Effective October 1, 2026 · Tenn. Valley Auth. Bd. of Dirs. — Data Center Capacity Commitment Charge (approved Aug. 20, 2026; eff. Oct. 1, 2026)
The Tennessee Valley Authority's Board of Directors approved a separate, higher wholesale rate for data centers on August 20, 2026, effective October 1. New or expanding data center loads above 5 megawatts now fall under a Capacity Commitment Charge attached to TVA's data center rate schedules, designed to recover the incremental capacity costs those customers impose on the system. The headline figures are substantial: upfront capacity commitment charges of roughly $1.5 million per megawatt, payable over three to five years, and an all-in average billing increase for data center customers of about 10%, phased in across three consecutive fiscal years. The stated purpose is to keep residential rates low while still serving growing data center demand. TVA matters here out of proportion to a single utility. It is a federal corporate agency supplying power across seven states, so this is not a state rate case but a regional cost-allocation decision reaching a large share of the Southeast — and TVA is among the first large US utilities to adopt a tariff aimed specifically at AI-driven load. Where most 2026 measures in this dataset restrict where data centers may be built, this one changes what they pay to run.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Bartz v. Anthropic
N.D. Cal. · Effective September 5, 2025 · Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal.)
Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic over its use of pirated-book datasets to train Claude. In June 2025 Judge William Alsup ruled that training on lawfully purchased books was fair use. The piracy claims (LibGen ingestion) proceeded toward settlement; in September 2025 Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion class settlement covering ~500,000 works. Judge Alsup granted preliminary approval September 25, 2025 and final approval July 20, 2026. The appeal period runs through August 19, 2026; class members will not receive payments until at least end of 2026.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective June 23, 2025 · 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; 16 C.F.R. Part 312
COPPA requires online services aimed at children under 13 to get verifiable parental consent before collecting kids' personal data. The 2025 rule update — fully in effect since April 22, 2026 — adds biometric identifiers (like face templates and voiceprints, which matter for AI tools), requires separate parental consent before sharing children's data for targeted advertising, and tightens data retention limits.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
TAKE IT DOWN Act
United States · Effective May 19, 2025 · Pub. L. No. 119-12 (S. 146)
Makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate images of someone without consent, including AI-generated deepfakes. Social media and similar platforms must give victims a way to request removal and must take the content (and known copies) down within 48 hours. The platform removal requirement became enforceable May 19, 2026, and the FTC has already begun enforcement.
-
Blocked / in litigation
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective April 16, 2025 · NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2025)
Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act — requiring parental consent for minors' social-media use, including algorithmic feeds — was preliminarily enjoined on February 12, 2024, then permanently enjoined on April 16, 2025 when the district court granted summary judgment for NetChoice. The state appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which vacated the district court's injunction in 2026.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)
D.C. Cir. · Effective March 18, 2025 · Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
The companion copyright case: Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright with 'Creativity Machine' (his AI) as the author. The D.C. Circuit affirmed in March 2025 that the Copyright Act's human-authorship requirement is dispositive as a matter of statutory law. AI cannot be a copyright author under U.S. law.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective November 20, 2024 · Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)
SafeRent agreed in November 2024 to a $2.275M settlement and a five-year ban on using its 'SafeRent Score' for housing-voucher applicants, after a class action alleged its AI tenant-screening tool systematically denied housing to Black and Hispanic Section 8 voucher holders. The first major AI tenant-screening Fair Housing Act settlement.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)
United States · Effective April 1, 2024 · 16 C.F.R. Part 461; 89 Fed. Reg. 15017
The FTC's Impersonation Rule lets the agency directly sue scammers who pretend to be a government agency or a real business — including those who use AI-cloned voices or generated images to do so. Civil penalties can reach $53,088 per violation. The FTC also issued a supplemental notice in February 2024 proposing to extend the rule to all individual impersonation.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
FTC v. Rite Aid
FTC · Effective February 26, 2024 · FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05023 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2023)
The FTC banned Rite Aid from using facial-recognition technology in its stores for five years after finding the pharmacy chain's FRT system falsely tagged customers — disproportionately women and people of color — as shoplifters, leading to wrongful detentions and humiliations.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
TCPA (AI voice calls)
United States · Effective February 8, 2024 · 47 U.S.C. § 227; FCC 24-17
Robocalls using AI-cloned or AI-generated voices are treated like other 'artificial voice' calls: callers need your prior express consent, must identify themselves, and must offer opt-outs for telemarketing. You can personally sue violators for $500 to $1,500 per illegal call.
Frequently asked questions about AI laws in Binghamton, New York
Are there AI laws in Binghamton, New York?
What federal AI rules apply in Binghamton?
Does New York have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in New York?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Binghamton?
How do I report an AI law violation in Binghamton?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Binghamton?
Is Binghamton regulated by New York's consumer privacy act?
Compliance guides for New York businesses
Plain-English guides to the New York AI and data laws companies most often need to comply with:
Have we missed an AI rule in Binghamton?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Binghamton ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email feedback@ailawsusa.com or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.