Home › AI Laws › North Dakota › Bismarck
AI Laws in Bismarck, North Dakota
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 17 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Bismarck, North Dakota: 10+ federal protections, 7 North Dakota state-level rules (no Bismarck-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on consumer data privacy, deepfakes, AI-generated images, and government use of AI. 7 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Bismarck local AI rules (and Burleigh County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Bismarck, North Dakota.
- Honest gap: We don't currently index any Bismarck-specific AI ordinances. Federal and North Dakota state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email feedback@ailawsusa.com.
North Dakota-level AI rules
7 North Dakota state rules apply to residents and businesses in Bismarck. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Limited protection
ND Sexually Explicit Deepfake Law
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · 2025 ND HB 1351; NDCC §§ 12.1-27.1-01(13), -03.3
North Dakota makes it a Class A misdemeanor to create, possess, or distribute nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes — including computer-generated intimate imagery. Victims can sue for up to $10,000 in statutory damages plus any profits the offender made.
-
In effect Limited protection
Artificial Intelligence Guideline
North Dakota · Effective 2025-11-17 · Artificial Intelligence Guideline
North Dakota Information Technology's guideline outlines best practices for secure, private, and ethical use of AI, supplementing the state's AI Policy and requiring GRC risk assessment before AI business use.
-
In effect Limited protection
ND 12.1-17-07 (using a robot/AI to harass is a crime)
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1429)
North Dakota updated its harassment law so that using a 'robot' to harass someone is itself a crime. A robot here means an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts using technology, including artificial intelligence. A person commits harassment if they use such a robot to engage in offensive conduct that serves no legitimate purpose.
-
In effect Limited protection
ND 12.1-17-07.1 (stalking via robot/AI, e.g. tracking, is a crime)
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-17-07.1; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1429)
North Dakota extended its stalking law to cover stalking carried out with a 'robot,' including artificial intelligence systems. This reaches conduct such as using a robot to track a person without authorization. The change makes clear that automated or AI-driven tools cannot be used as a workaround to stalk someone.
-
In effect Limited protection
ND HB 1167 (political ads using AI to impersonate must say so)
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · N.D. Cent. Code ch. 16.1-10; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1167)
North Dakota now requires a clear disclaimer on political advertising or communications that use artificial intelligence to visually or audibly impersonate a real person. Covered content must display the statement 'THIS CONTENT GENERATED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.' The requirement targets AI impersonations in political video, audio, and images, and does not apply to ordinary tools like spell-check, grammar correction, or stylistic editing.
-
In effect Limited protection
ND HB 1386 (CSAM laws cover computer-generated/AI images of minors)
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-27.2-01, 12.1-27.2-04.1; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1386)
North Dakota expanded its child sexual abuse material laws to apply to computer-generated images depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct. It revised the definition of 'minor' so that it includes a computer-generated image that appears to depict a person under 18. This closes a gap for AI-generated or synthetic imagery, so possessing such material is prohibited even when no real child was depicted.
-
In effect Limited protection
ND HB 1613 (drone evidence limits extended to robots; no armed police robots)
North Dakota · Effective 2025-08-01 · N.D. Cent. Code ch. 29-29.4; 2025 N.D. Laws (HB 1613)
North Dakota expanded its surveillance-by-drone chapter so the same rules now apply to 'robots' — powered, AI-driven machines or systems that can operate on their own. Information that law enforcement gathers using a robot is subject to the same evidentiary limits that already apply to information gathered by a drone. The law also bars law enforcement from using a robot or a drone to deploy a weapon or otherwise use force.
Federal AI rules that apply in Bismarck, North Dakota
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Bismarck, North Dakota. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Bartz v. Anthropic
N.D. Cal. · Effective 2025-09-05 · 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 Stronger protection
Benavides v. Tesla (Autopilot)
S.D. Fla. · Effective 2025-08-01 · Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-21940 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025)
A Florida federal jury found Tesla 33% liable in August 2025 for the 2019 death of Naibel Benavides Leon, in a crash involving Autopilot. The jury awarded $243M ($129M compensatory + $200M punitive); in February 2026 the court denied Tesla's post-trial motions and upheld the verdict in full — the first Autopilot wrongful-death verdict against Tesla.
-
In effect Stronger protection
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective 2025-06-23 · 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 Stronger protection
TAKE IT DOWN Act
United States · Effective 2025-05-19 · 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 Stronger protection
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective 2025-04-16 · 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 Stronger protection
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)
D.C. Cir. · Effective 2025-03-18 · 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 Stronger protection
Thomson Reuters v. Ross
D. Del. · Effective 2025-02-11 · Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
Thomson Reuters sued legal-research startup Ross Intelligence in 2020 for copying Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal-research tool. In February 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation) granted summary judgment to Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement and rejected Ross's fair-use defense — the first definitive U.S. ruling on AI-training fair use. No jury trial occurred: a 2023 opinion had denied summary judgment and pointed toward trial, but the court invited renewed briefing and reversed course in the 2025 ruling.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective 2024-11-20 · 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 Stronger protection
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)
United States · Effective 2024-04-01 · 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 Stronger protection
TCPA (AI voice calls)
United States · Effective 2024-02-08 · 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 Bismarck, North Dakota
Are there AI laws in Bismarck, North Dakota?
What federal AI rules apply in Bismarck?
Does North Dakota have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in North Dakota?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Bismarck?
How do I report an AI law violation in Bismarck?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Bismarck?
Is Bismarck regulated by North Dakota's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Bismarck?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Bismarck 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.