AI Laws in Burlington, Vermont
AI Laws USA tracks 20 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Burlington, Vermont: 10+ federal rules, 10 Vermont state-level rules (no Burlington-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on government use of AI, consumer protection, consumer data privacy, and police and surveillance AI. 8 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Burlington local AI rules (and Chittenden County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Burlington, Vermont.
- No local entries yet: we don't currently index any Burlington-specific AI ordinances. Federal and Vermont state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email feedback@ailawsusa.com.
Vermont-level AI rules most relevant to Burlington
10 Vermont state rules apply to residents and businesses in Burlington. Showing the 8 most relevant to Burlington's local picture; 2 more are on the Vermont jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of
Vermont · Effective March 10, 2020 · Attorney General Donovan Sues Clearview AI for Violations of Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law
The Vermont Attorney General sued Clearview AI under the Consumer Protection Act and Data Broker Law for scraping Vermonters' photos and using facial-recognition AI to map faces and sell access without consent.
-
In effect Strength: limited
VT AG Clark
VT · Effective March 24, 2026 · VT AG Clark — 17-State Coalition Letter on Data Broker AI Surveillance Loophole (2026-03-24)
Joined 17-state coalition urging Congress to close the loophole letting federal agencies purchase commercial data for AI surveillance, bypassing Fourth Amendment protections.
-
Vetoed
Vermont — Gov. Scott veto of large data center regulatory framework (2026)
Vermont · Vermont H.727 (An act relating to sustainable data center deployment) — vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott, May 28, 2026
Vermont came close to having a statewide regulatory framework for large data centers and does not have one, because Gov. Phil Scott vetoed the bill. The measure was TRIPARTISAN and wide-ranging — it included far more than water regulation. Scott's stated reasons were that he believes VERMONT ALREADY HAS SUFFICIENT REGULATIONS in place to scrutinise a proposed large data center, and that the bill went too far in what it subjected those facilities to. As recently as the week before September 16, 2026 he was still saying Vermont does not need new state-level rules for data centers. What makes this worth recording is the contradiction that surfaced afterwards. Vermont's Secretary of Natural Resources, JULIE MOORE — Scott's own appointee — testified before a U.S. Congressional committee in support of a FEDERAL bill directing states to limit the costs consumers shoulder for the water data centers use. She told lawmakers she supports 'requiring owners and operators to help pay for the water infrastructure impacts they create,' as well as studying the potential impacts data centers could have on nearby water sources. A Vermont official testifying before Congress is itself described as a rarity. Dan Fingas, executive director of Vermont Conservation Voters — one of the organisations that lobbied for the vetoed bill — put it directly: 'I do think there's a contradiction. This testimony from Secretary Moore to Congress shows that they've already seen areas where Vermont is left unprotected — or, at least, needs more protection.' Moore pushed back, saying her testimony was unrelated to the reasons Scott rejected the bill. In the absence of a state law, THREE VERMONT CITIES AND TOWNS have passed regulations aimed at prohibiting data centers, at least temporarily. In Vernon, a company has eyed the former Vermont Yankee nuclear plant site for a data center project or something else.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
VT S.124 (statewide FR moratorium)
VT · Effective October 7, 2020 · 2020 Vt. Acts & Res. No. 166 §14
Vermont S.124 bars Vermont law enforcement from acquiring or using facial-recognition technology absent express legislative authorization — the nation's strongest statewide ban.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: moderate
Vermont Data Broker Law (H.211)
Vermont · Enacted June 16, 2026 · Vt. H.211 (2025-2026 biennium); signed June 16, 2026
Vermont enacted a law tightening rules on data brokers — companies that buy and sell people's personal information, the same data that feeds profiling and AI systems. Signed by Gov. Phil Scott on June 16, 2026, it strengthens Vermont's existing data-broker regulation and personal-information protections.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Vermont H.410 / Act 132 (inventory of state AI / automated decision systems)
Vermont · Effective July 1, 2022 · 2022 Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 132 (H.410); 3 V.S.A. 3305
Vermont directed its Agency of Digital Services to review and catalog every automated decision system the state is building, using, or buying. The inventory must document each system's name, vendor, capabilities, data inputs, whether it was tested for bias, its intended purpose, and its costs, covering both systems that decide on their own and those that assist a human. The law also created state AI governance bodies, including a Division of Artificial Intelligence and an AI Advisory Council.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence
Vermont · Effective May 18, 2026 · Executive Order No. 04-26 - Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force
Governor Phil Scott established the Vermont Artificial Intelligence Economic Task Force to assess how AI is reshaping the state economy and recommend, within 90 days, up to five ways state government could adopt AI to better serve the public.
-
In effect Strength: limited
VT DOI AI Bulletin
VT · Effective March 12, 2024 · Vermont DFR Insurance Bulletin 229 (2024-03-12)
The VT Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in VT must maintain a written AI program with governance, risk-management, testing, third-party-AI oversight, and documentation controls. The bulletin operationalizes existing unfair-trade-practice and unfair-discrimination law as applied to insurers' AI use cases — underwriting, pricing, claims, fraud detection, and marketing.
Federal AI rules that apply in Burlington, Vermont
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Burlington, Vermont. 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 Burlington, Vermont
Are there AI laws in Burlington, Vermont?
What federal AI rules apply in Burlington?
Does Vermont have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Vermont?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Burlington?
How do I report an AI law violation in Burlington?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Burlington?
Is Burlington regulated by Vermont's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Burlington?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Burlington 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.