AI Laws in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
AI Laws USA tracks 30 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma: 10+ federal rules, 19 Oklahoma state-level rules, and 1 local Broken Arrow ordinance. Coverage is strongest on government use of AI, data-center siting and energy, AI disclosure and transparency, and automated decision-making. 17 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Broken Arrow local AI rules (and Tulsa County County)
1 local AI rule specific to Broken Arrow, Oklahoma or Tulsa County County.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Broken Arrow OK data center moratorium (2026)
Broken Arrow, OK · Effective June 15, 2026 · Broken Arrow, Okla. — moratorium on data center proposals adopted June 2026, expiring December 31, 2026, extension under consideration
Broken Arrow's City Council approved a moratorium in June 2026 on any data center proposals, running through the end of the year, so city officials could investigate the impacts of large-scale data centers on local resources and create appropriate regulations. In September, City Manager Michael Spurgeon said the moratorium could be extended, that officials are still studying the question, and that there are no imminent projects on the horizon. He pushed back directly on social media claims that a data center is a foregone conclusion: the administration has reached no conclusions and is not close to a recommendation. The proximate cause has also gone away for now — the city learned in June of plans for a data center on 51 acres in the 8500 block of South, but the letter of intent to sell that property EXPIRED AND WAS NOT RENEWED. This entry is recorded because it is a real adopted measure with a defined end date approaching, and because it captures the ordinary case that rarely gets reported: a moratorium quietly running its course with no project to stop.
Oklahoma-level AI rules most relevant to Broken Arrow
19 Oklahoma state rules apply to residents and businesses in Broken Arrow. Showing the 8 most relevant to Broken Arrow's local picture; 11 more are on the Oklahoma jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Oklahoma HB 2992 data center ratepayer protection (2026)
Oklahoma · Effective August 6, 2026 · Okla. H.B. 2992 (2026) (Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026)
Oklahoma enacted the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, House Bill 2992, authored by Rep. Brad Boles and Sen. Grant Green. Governor Stitt marked the signing on August 6, 2026 together with a companion groundwater law. The Act's purpose is to keep Oklahoma families, small businesses and ordinary utility customers from carrying the utility and infrastructure costs that large-scale energy users create. The Senate added transparency requirements before passage, so the law does disclosure work as well as cost allocation. Oklahoma passed it alongside Senate Bill 259, the Groundwater Modernization Act, and legislators presented the two together as a package: one law addressing who pays for power and infrastructure, the other addressing water. That pairing is notable — most states in 2026 addressed electricity or water, rarely both in the same session, and Oklahoma is one of the few to legislate on the two constraints at once.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: moderate
Oklahoma SB 259 Groundwater Modernization Act (2026)
Oklahoma · Effective November 1, 2026 · Okla. S.B. 259 (2026) (Groundwater Modernization Act) (eff. Nov. 1, 2026)
Oklahoma's Groundwater Modernization Act, Senate Bill 259, was signed on August 6, 2026 and takes effect November 1, 2026. It requires water permit holders to file annual water-use reports with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and directs the Board to write rules for reviewing those reports, investigating complaints of waste, and imposing penalties for overuse. The structure matters: reporting alone produces data nobody acts on, so the Act pairs the disclosure duty with an investigation power and a penalty power in the same statute. It was signed as half of a package with House Bill 2992, the Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act — legislators presented the two together as addressing the two resources data centers strain hardest. The Act is not limited to data centers; it reaches all water permit holders, which makes it broader in application than most 2026 data-center-driven measures while still being the instrument Oklahoma chose to answer data center water use.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Cherokee Nation EO 2026-02-CTH (Data Center Task Force)
Cherokee Nation (OK) · Effective February 24, 2026 · Cherokee Nation Executive Order 2026-02-CTH (Feb. 24, 2026)
Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. signed Executive Order 2026-02-CTH on February 24, 2026, establishing a nine-member task force to study the environmental and economic impacts of data center development on the Cherokee Nation Reservation. The task force issued its final report in June 2026. Key finding: a large majority of Cherokee Nation citizens surveyed do not support hyperscale data center construction on the reservation. The Cherokee Nation adopted a formal policy position: it will not support hyperscale data center development on non-tribally-owned reservation lands unless developers conduct robust tribal consultation addressing cultural and natural resource concerns with meaningful community engagement throughout the project. On August 5, 2026, Principal Chief Hoskin made a broader announcement banning all data center development on tribal land — see cherokee-nation-dc-ban-2026 for the stronger, subsequent action.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Seminole Nation (OK) Data Center / GenAI Moratorium
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma · Effective March 7, 2026 · Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Tribal Council Resolution (Mar. 7, 2026)
First tribal council in the United States to fully bar inquiries, discussions, and development of any data center or generative AI hyperscale infrastructure within Seminole Nation territory. Unanimous (24-0) vote citing water-contamination and sovereignty concerns.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Muscogee (Creek) Nation digital infrastructure task force
Muscogee (Creek) Nation · Effective July 25, 2026 · Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council — Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force (enacted 12-3, July 25, 2026)
The Muscogee (Creek) Nation National Council voted 12-3 on July 25, 2026 to establish the Tribal Digital Infrastructure and Data Sovereignty Task Force. The task force is charged with studying the potential environmental impact, effects on cultural resources and cybersecurity, and data sovereignty implications of AI systems and data center development on reservation lands. Principal Chief David Hill supported the legislation, citing community feedback about data center and AI infrastructure concerns. The task force — which includes the Principal Chief, National Council representatives, the attorney general's office, and the tribal utility authority — has 60 days to report its findings to the National Council (deadline approximately September 23, 2026). This is a study body, not a moratorium; no ban on data centers has been enacted.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Cherokee Nation hyperscale data center ban (2026)
Cherokee Nation (OK) · Effective August 10, 2026 · Cherokee Nation Data Center Task Force Report (Aug. 5, 2026); Principal Chief directive (approx. Aug. 10, 2026)
The Cherokee Nation — the largest federally recognized tribe in the United States, with more than 475,000 citizens — banned hyperscale data center development on tribally owned and trust lands in August 2026, following a Data Center Task Force Report released August 5, 2026. The task force surveyed 1,593 Cherokee Nation citizens and found approximately 64% opposed hyperscale construction within the reservation, with 14% in favor and 22% unsure. The task force defined hyperscale data centers as facilities often spanning more than 10,000 square feet and requiring more than 100 megawatts of power. The report cited concerns about energy use, water consumption, air quality, noise, light pollution, and cultural resource protection. For land within the Cherokee Nation Reservation that is not tribally owned or held in trust, the Nation announced it will not consider supporting a hyperscale data center project unless developers consult with the tribe early, address cultural and natural resource concerns, and include meaningful community input.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Kickapoo Tribe (OK) Data Center Opposition (2026)
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma · Effective July 17, 2026 · Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Business Committee — Formal Opposition to Data Center Development (July 2026)
The Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma's Business Committee — the tribe's five-member governing body — voted in July 2026 to formally oppose any data center development on tribal lands. The committee issued a formal statement in response to multiple developer approaches, citing concerns over water resources, land use, and electricity. Committee treasurer Chenille Suke stated the tribe had already been approached for data center development several times and that while it supports economic development, the facilities 'are not compatible with its long-term vision for sustainable development and responsible stewardship of Tribal resources.'
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Cherokee Nation AI Policy
Cherokee Nation (OK) · Effective August 21, 2025 · Cherokee Nation IT AI Policy (Aug. 21, 2025); companion to Cherokee Nation EO 2024-07-CTH
Cherokee Nation's first AI policy. Governs responsible and ethical AI use across tribal government, protects Cherokee language and cultural content, and requires AI vendor questionnaires before deployment in tribal systems. Signed by Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr.
Federal AI rules that apply in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. 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 Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Are there AI laws in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma?
What federal AI rules apply in Broken Arrow?
Does Oklahoma have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Oklahoma?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Broken Arrow?
How do I report an AI law violation in Broken Arrow?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Broken Arrow?
Is Broken Arrow regulated by Oklahoma's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Broken Arrow?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Broken Arrow 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.