AI Laws in Bozeman, Montana
AI Laws USA tracks 19 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Bozeman, Montana: 10+ federal rules, 9 Montana state-level rules (no Bozeman-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on government use of AI, deepfakes, AI-generated images, and automated decision-making. 9 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Bozeman local AI rules (and Gallatin County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Bozeman, Montana.
- No local entries yet: we don't currently index any Bozeman-specific AI ordinances. Federal and Montana state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email feedback@ailawsusa.com.
Montana-level AI rules most relevant to Bozeman
9 Montana state rules apply to residents and businesses in Bozeman. Showing the 8 most relevant to Bozeman's local picture; 1 more are on the Montana jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Montana SB 413 (crime to share explicit deepfakes)
Montana · Effective May 12, 2025 · Mont. SB 413 (2025), Ch. 606; MCA Title 45, ch. 5, part 6
Montana created a new crime for sharing sexually explicit deepfakes (AI-generated or altered images and video) of a real, identifiable person. It is illegal to knowingly disclose such media when you know the person did not consent and that the disclosure would cause them serious emotional distress, to disclose it intending to harass or harm the person, or to possess it and threaten to release it to extort money or other things of value.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Montana HB 514 (sextortion deepfakes in privacy crime)
Montana · Effective October 1, 2025 · Mont. HB 514 (2025) (Ch. 686); MCA 45-8-213
Montana expanded its existing 'privacy in communications' crime to cover real or AI-fabricated sexual images. It is now an offense to publish or distribute such images of an identifiable person without consent to harass or harm them or to obtain money, and separately to possess such images and threaten to release them to extort money or other valuables.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Montana HB 513 (property right in voice & likeness vs. deepfakes)
Montana · Effective January 1, 2026 · Mont. HB 513 (2025) (Ch. 685); codified in Title 30, ch. 14, MCA
Montana gives individuals a property right in their name, voice, and visual likeness. A person may be sued for damages if, without consent, they intentionally publish, perform, distribute, or make available to the public a digital voice or visual depiction of an individual for commercial use, knowing it is an unauthorized depiction of that person. The same liability applies to distributing tools whose primary purpose is producing such unauthorized digital depictions. The right lasts 20 years after death, with exceptions for news, commentary, and parody.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Montana SB 25 election deepfakes — preliminarily enjoined as to plaintiff (2026)
Montana · Enacted January 1, 2025 · Mont. SB 25, 69th Leg., 2025 Reg. Sess.; enrolled bill: legiscan.com/MT/text/SB25/id/3212547
Montana's SB 25 requires a disclaimer on election communications that use AI-generated or digitally altered images, video or sound to 'injure the reputation of the candidate or party or otherwise deceive a voter.' It passed in 2025 with support from ALL Democratic lawmakers and a majority of Republicans, and Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it. ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 A FEDERAL JUDGE PARTLY BLOCKED IT. Senior U.S. District Judge SUSAN WATTERS granted a preliminary injunction to Rep. DAN BARTEL (R-Lewistown), holding the law LIKELY VIOLATED FREE EXPRESSION RIGHTS. Her reasoning is the part worth keeping: the state had 'FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE PURPORTED RISKS OF GENERATIVE AI TECHNOLOGIES COULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY MANAGED' through a LESS RESTRICTIVE METHOD. That is ordinary strict-scrutiny narrow-tailoring analysis, and it is a warning to every AI election-disclosure law in this dataset: asserting that AI is dangerous is not enough, the state must show that a disclaimer mandate was the least restrictive way to address it. THE SCOPE OF THE RULING IS NARROW AND SHOULD NOT BE OVERSTATED. For now the injunction ONLY prevents the state from enforcing SB 25 AGAINST BARTEL AND HIS POLITICAL COMMITTEE, Accountability in State Government. The law is not struck down and remains on the books as to everyone else. HOW IT AROSE: Bartel's committee paid for campaign mailers attacking Republican moderates during this year's heated GOP legislative primaries, and several targeted candidates filed complaints under SB 25. One came from Rep. Eric Albus (R-Hinsdale), running for an open Senate seat, over a mailer calling him 'woke' that included AN ALTERED IMAGE SHOWING HIM WEARING A PRONOUN PIN AND HOLDING A PRIDE FLAG. Albus said he found other mailers amusing — one depicted him as a sheep — but that CONSTITUENTS BELIEVED THIS IMAGE WAS AUTHENTIC: 'It really polarized the Hi-Line community, because these people [know] me, and they view it as what it is — that it's a disparage[ment] of character.' Montana Commissioner of Political Practices CHRIS GALLUS DISMISSED Albus's complaint and the others, finding the mailers fell under an EXEMPTION FOR SATIRE AND PARODY. Bartel's attorney Matthew Monforton argued the injunction was needed anyway, because the commissioner's forbearance today says nothing about tomorrow: 'that doesn't tell us how he was going to enforce it tomorrow, or how a new commissioner was going to enforce it, or how the county attorney or the attorney general would enforce' it. Monforton also framed the merits: 'Every generation uses a new political tool, whether it's the printing press, then radio, then TV, then Photoshop, and now AI. Liberal Republicans want to criminalize this newest tool rather than engage in debate.'
-
In effect Strength: limited
Montana HB 178 (limits on government AI use)
Montana · Effective October 1, 2025 · Mont. HB 178 (2025) (Ch. 427); codified in Title 2, MCA
Montana restricts how state and local government use AI. A government entity or state officer may not use an AI system to manipulate a person or group, to classify people in ways that cause unlawful discrimination or disparate impact, for a malicious purpose, or to surveil public spaces (with narrow exceptions). Government must disclose AI-produced material that no qualified human reviewed and disclose public-facing AI interfaces. Any AI recommendation or decision that could affect a person's rights, duties, or privileges must be reviewed by a qualified human who can reject or change it.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Fort Peck Tribes (MT) — Data Center Discussion Ban
Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes · Effective August 10, 2026 · Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribal Executive Board Resolution (August 10, 2026), barring data center discussions on the Fort Peck Reservation
The Fort Peck Tribal Executive Board of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes — located in northeast Montana — voted at its August 10, 2026 regular meeting to bar all future discussions and proposals for data center development on the Fort Peck Reservation. The resolution bans 'all future discussions and/or proposals pertaining to individuals or entities that would potentially develop data centers on the Fort Peck Reservation' due to 'the threat to our environment and members of our tribe with irreversible impacts.' Tribal Chairman Floyd Azure explained that the board had been approached by three different data center companies in the prior year, none of whom could explain to tribal leadership how the development would benefit the tribe. The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses about 2 million acres in the extreme northeastern corner of Montana, home to the Assiniboine and Sioux peoples. The ban mirrors actions by the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (March 2026), Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (April 2026), and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (May 2026) — all of which banned data center development on tribal lands.
-
In effect Strength: limited
MT Right to Compute Act
Montana · Effective April 17, 2025 · Mont. SB 212, 69th Leg., 2025 Reg. Sess., signed Apr. 17, 2025
Montana became the first state to enshrine a constitutional right to compute, guaranteeing residents the right to own and use computational resources including AI hardware, software, and data processing tools. Any government regulation restricting these rights must meet a strict scrutiny standard.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)
Montana · Effective August 11, 2025 · Executive Order 5-2025 (406 JOBS Initiative)
Gov. Gianforte's order directs the Department of Labor & Industry and the State Workforce Innovation Board to expand AI training, integrate AI tools into workforce services, and prioritize AI-readiness in state talent-development programs.
Federal AI rules that apply in Bozeman, Montana
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Bozeman, Montana. 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 Bozeman, Montana
Are there AI laws in Bozeman, Montana?
What federal AI rules apply in Bozeman?
Does Montana have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Montana?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Bozeman?
How do I report an AI law violation in Bozeman?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Bozeman?
Is Bozeman regulated by Montana's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Bozeman?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Bozeman 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.