AI Laws in Bristol, Virginia
AI Laws USA tracks 37 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Bristol, Virginia: 10+ federal rules, 26 Virginia state-level rules, and 1 local Bristol ordinance. Coverage is strongest on government use of AI, data-center siting and energy, consumer protection, and automated decision-making. 22 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Bristol local AI rules (and Bristol City County)
1 local AI rule specific to Bristol, Virginia or Bristol City County.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Bristol VA PD facial recognition program (first VA local agency)
Bristol, VA · Effective June 1, 2026 · Bristol VA PD General Order 9-09, Facial Recognition Technology (eff. June 1, 2026); Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (eff. July 1, 2026); Clearview AI via LexisNexis
The Bristol, Virginia Police Department launched a facial recognition technology (FRT) program on June 1, 2026, governed by a 27-page General Order 9-09. Bristol PD is the first known local law-enforcement agency in Virginia to adopt FRT following the state's shift from an effective ban to an authorization-with-safeguards regime under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2. The program uses Clearview AI, accessed through LexisNexis. Bristol PD publicly posts its facial recognition activity record at bristolva.gov as required by state law. Under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2, local agencies that use FR must publish a policy, publish an annual report by April 1 each year, maintain confidentiality of FR data, and restrict access to warrant-authorized queries. The DCJS reported that NO Virginia local law-enforcement agencies used FR in 2023 or 2024 (prior to the July 1, 2026 authorization change).
Virginia-level AI rules most relevant to Bristol
26 Virginia state rules apply to residents and businesses in Bristol. Showing the 8 most relevant to Bristol's local picture; 18 more are on the Virginia jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
VA SCC Data Center Rate Case
VA · Effective November 13, 2024 · Va. SCC Case No. PUR-2024-00144
Virginia's State Corporation Commission opened a formal investigation into how data center load growth — driven by AI compute demand — should be allocated across electricity rate classes, to keep residential customers from subsidizing AI data centers. Includes minimum-billing demands and special tariffs.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Virginia SCC data center transmission cost order (2026)
Virginia · Effective July 15, 2026 · Va. State Corp. Comm'n, Dominion Energy Va. Rider T-1 proceeding (2026)
The Virginia State Corporation Commission ordered Dominion Energy to develop a policy directly assigning the cost of transmission infrastructure to data centers and other large-load customers that connect to it — with the stated goal of an acceptable and symmetrical approach to assigning costs in those circumstances. The order came out of Dominion's proposed change to Rider T-1, the line item recovering transmission investment, which the utility wanted increased to recover roughly $1.5 billion. The numbers make the effect legible: under Dominion's original filing a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours would have paid about $2.90 more per month. Under the new allocation methodology that falls to about $0.94. The Piedmont Environmental Council described it as a first step toward requiring large-load data centers to pay for transmission facilities built solely to serve them. Virginia had already established a separate rate class for large data centers by regulatory action in 2025, and the 2026 General Assembly passed SB 253 and HB 1393 requiring that large load customers have no adverse effect on other customers' rates. This order is the SCC applying that principle to transmission specifically, in the state with by far the largest data center concentration in the country.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Virginia § 15.2-2209.5 data center siting disclosure law (2026)
Virginia · Effective July 1, 2026 · Va. Code § 15.2-2209.5 (2026), enacted by HB 153 and SB 94, effective July 1, 2026
Virginia now has a statewide law governing where the largest data centers may go and what their developers must disclose before a local board votes. It took effect July 1, 2026 as Va. Code § 15.2-2209.5, enacted through identical companion bills HB 153 and SB 94. What it does is narrower than the debate around it suggests, and the distinction matters. The law REQUIRES STUDIES. It forces a developer to study NOISE, and it forces the utility to disclose SUBSTATIONS, before the local vote happens. It does NOT set a noise limit. It does NOT set a water cap. It does NOT set a setback. In the Roanoke Rambler's framing, understanding that difference is what separates holding a project accountable from misreading what local officials are actually empowered to do. This is a DISCLOSURE-AND-PROCESS statute, not a substantive-standards statute — it changes what a board must know before it votes, not what it may approve. That is a real but bounded protection, and it sits directly on a gap this dataset records again and again: local decibel ordinances that specify a dBA figure with no measurement methodology behind it. A mandatory noise study supplies the evidence that such limits presuppose, which is worth something even where no limit exists. The political history is the other reason to record this. Both patrons represent Prince William County, the heart of Northern Virginia's data center buildout, where fights over noise, substations and water produced the legislation. A BROADER version passed in 2025 — HB 1601 and SB 1449 — and Gov. Glenn Youngkin declined to sign it, returned it with amendments, and vetoed it on May 2, 2025, citing concerns about reduced local autonomy. Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed the 2026 version, which her office lists among the new laws taking effect July 1 and describes as bipartisan. More than 60 data center bills were introduced in Virginia in 2026; about 15 passed, many as identical House and Senate pairs.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricit
Virginia · Enacted June 30, 2026 · Virginia FY2026-2028 Biennial Budget: Data Center Electricity Tax, Water Cooling and Noise Provisions
Virginia's new two-year budget imposes a first-of-its-kind $0.011/kWh tax on data center electricity consumption effective July 1, 2026, and directs regulators to establish water-cooling scarcity rules and first-ever noise standards for data centers.
-
In effect Strength: limited
New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Bienn
Virginia State Corporation Commission (Dominion Energy Virginia) · Effective November 25, 2025 · New GS-5 Data Center / Large Load Rate Class, DEV 2025 Biennial Review (Case PUR-2025-00058)
The Virginia SCC created a new GS-5 rate class (effective Jan 1, 2027) for customers exceeding 25 MW with load factor above 75%, requiring 14-year contracts and minimum demand charges of 85% for transmission/distribution and 60% for generation so data centers pay their own costs.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Va. Code 19.2-11.14 (humans, not AI, must decide bail/sentencing/parole)
Virginia · Effective July 1, 2025 · Va. Code 19.2-11.14; HB 1642 (2025), Va. Acts c. 637
Virginia requires that key criminal-justice decisions be made by a human being, even when an AI tool produces a recommendation or prediction. The rule covers pretrial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, probation, parole, correctional supervision, and rehabilitation. No such decision may be made without a human decision-maker, and any AI-generated recommendation is subject to any challenge or objection allowed by law.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Virginia § 15.2-1723.2 (facial recognition by local law enforcement, eff. July 1, 2026)
Virginia · Effective July 1, 2026 · Va. Code § 15.2-1723.2 (2026), effective July 1, 2026
Virginia Code § 15.2-1723.2, effective July 1, 2026, imposes statewide binding requirements on how local law enforcement agencies in Virginia may use facial recognition technology. Agencies wishing to use facial recognition must publicly post a policy meeting or exceeding the State Police model, publish annual use reports by April 1 each year, and give 30 days written notice to their governing body before procuring the technology. The law bans real-time tracking of identified individuals in public spaces and prohibits creating a live-video database using facial recognition. All searches must be logged and violations by operators constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor. The law applies to all Virginia localities, including Northern Virginia regional law enforcement systems.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
VA PDD Act (2017 — first)
Virginia · Effective July 1, 2017 · Va. Code §§ 46.2-100, 46.2-908.1:1
Virginia was the first U.S. state to legalize sidewalk delivery robots. PDDs may operate on sidewalks and crosswalks (10 mph cap, 50 lb cargo limit), must carry $100,000 liability insurance and a visible operator ID, and localities may further regulate them. Starship Technologies' deployment at George Mason in 2019 traces back to this law.
Federal AI rules that apply in Bristol, Virginia
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Bristol, Virginia. 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 Bristol, Virginia
Are there AI laws in Bristol, Virginia?
What federal AI rules apply in Bristol?
Does Virginia have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Virginia?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Bristol?
How do I report an AI law violation in Bristol?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Bristol?
Is Bristol regulated by Virginia's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Bristol?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Bristol 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.