AI Laws in Calexico, California
AI Laws USA tracks 86 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Calexico, California: 10+ federal rules, 73 California state-level rules, and 3 local Calexico/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, automated decision-making, AI disclosure and transparency, and consumer data privacy. 48 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Calexico local AI rules (and Imperial County County)
3 local AI rules specific to Calexico, California or Imperial County County.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: stronger
Calexico, CA — permanent citywide data center ban (2026)
Calexico, CA · Effective October 16, 2026 · Calexico, Cal., Ordinance adding Calexico Mun. Code ch. 17.11, art. XII (adopted Sept. 16, 2026, effective 30 days thereafter)
Calexico has made data centers a prohibited land use across the entire city — not a pause, a permanent prohibition. The council adopted the ordinance 3-0 on September 16, 2026 at its second reading, and it takes effect 30 days later. The new Article XII of Chapter 17.11 of the municipal code is built out of five sections: purpose, definition, prohibition, exemption and enforcement. The prohibition section states that data centers are not a permitted land use within the city, and the definition reaches facilities housing networked computer systems for data storage, processing or distribution together with their supporting infrastructure. There is an exemption section, but its contents are not stated in the available reporting and should not be assumed. The city got here in stages: on June 3, 2026 the council directed staff to bring back a possible moratorium; on July 1, 2026 staff recommended an interim urgency ordinance under California Government Code section 65858, the state's emergency land-use pause authority, which bought time to write permanent rules; those rules are this ban. Calexico is the first city in Imperial County to prohibit data centers permanently.
-
Blocked / in litigation
Imperial County CA CEQA ruling, 330 MW data center EIR (2026)
Imperial County, CA · Imperial County Superior Court (Cal.) — tentative ruling requiring a full EIR for the Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing 330 MW data center (September 1, 2026) (Anderholt, J.)
Judge L. Brooks Anderholt of the Imperial County Superior Court issued a tentative ruling on September 1, 2026 holding that Imperial County must conduct a FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT under the California Environmental Quality Act before approving Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing LLC's 330-megawatt data center, on roughly 75 acres southeast of Aten Road and Clark Road. The ruling identifies two distinct failures. First, the county improperly treated its approvals as MINISTERIAL — meaning a rubber-stamp determination that the application met fixed standards, which under CEQA carries no environmental review obligation at all. The court held the approvals were not ministerial, which restores the review duty. Second, the county relied on a 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW that did not address the current proposal. Nine-year-old analysis of a different project cannot substitute for analysis of this one. The most useful part of the ruling is its treatment of scope. The court found the project encompasses INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE that must be evaluated comprehensively rather than piecemeal: a 330 MW substation, an 862 MWh battery storage system, emergency generation comprising 132 NATURAL GAS GENERATORS, and water treatment facilities. Splitting a data center from its substation, its batteries and its generator farm — and reviewing each as if it were a separate small project — is the standard way large facilities avoid full environmental review, and this ruling forecloses it. The tentative decision prevents grading, construction and physical development from proceeding until proper review occurs. It is a tentative ruling, and no final judgment or appeal is reflected in the located source.
-
Blocked / in litigation
IVCM v. Imperial County — data center moratorium set aside
Imperial County, CA · Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, LLC v. Imperial County (Imperial Cnty. Super. Ct., ruling Sept. 4, 2026)
A data center developer sued Imperial County, California over its 2026 urgency moratorium on data centers. A Superior Court judge ruled on Sept. 4, 2026 that the county had not made the findings state law requires and ordered the moratorium ordinances set aside. The county repealed them on Oct. 6, 2026; a separate environmental impact report is still required for the developer's project.
California-level AI rules most relevant to Calexico
73 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in Calexico. Showing the 8 most relevant to Calexico's local picture; 65 more are on the California jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: limited
CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framewo
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office · Effective January 1, 2024 · CCC systemwide AI guidance and HUMANS responsible-AI framework
The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office issues systemwide AI guidance built on its HUMANS framework (human-centered, privacy, algorithmic-discrimination protections, notice and explanation, safety) governing AI in instruction and student support.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
CA SB 1168 — data center grid cost allocation
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. S.B. 1168 (McNerney), Ch. 440, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 21, 2026); Pub. Util. Code sec. 901
California SB 1168 (Sen. Jerry McNerney) directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in a new or existing proceeding, to look at rate structures that would make data centers pay their reasonable share of transmission and distribution costs and their proportionate share of the extra power purchases needed to serve them, and that would ease cost pressure on residential customers, including low-income customers in the CARE and FERA programs. Governor Newsom signed it on September 21, 2026 (Chapter 440, Statutes of 2026), and it takes effect January 1, 2027. The measure aims to keep ordinary California ratepayers from subsidizing the electricity costs of AI data centers. It does not set a specific rate or deadline.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
CA CPPA ADMT Regs
CA · Effective January 1, 2026 · 11 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 7200-7232
California's privacy agency finalized binding regulations governing automated decision-making and AI used to make significant decisions about Californians — including hiring, housing, education, healthcare, financial services, and ads to minors. Consumers gain rights to pre-use notice, opt-out, and access to information about how AI made the decision.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
CCPA/CPRA + ADMT Regulations
California · Effective January 1, 2026 · Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, div. 6
California's main privacy law gives consumers rights to know, delete, correct, and opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information. New regulations finalized in 2025 add rights around automated decision-making technology (ADMT): businesses using ADMT for significant decisions (jobs, housing, credit, healthcare) must give pre-use notice, let people opt out, and provide access to how decisions were made.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: stronger
California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1405, Ch. 178, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 9, 2026)
California Assembly Bill 1405 creates a state registry for AI auditors and sets standards for their independence, transparency and integrity. Governor Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, the same day he signed Senate Bill 813, which sets up a framework for independent organizations to assess AI systems. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, and the Government Operations Agency must have the registry running by January 1, 2029, after which AI auditors must be registered. Registered auditors must be independent of the companies they audit, may not audit their own work or seek jobs with the company during an audit, and may not block or punish employee whistleblowers. An auditor who breaks the rules can be removed from the registry and referred to the Attorney General. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan authored the bill.
-
In effect Strength: limited
CA Bar GenAI Guidance
CA · Effective November 16, 2023 · State Bar of California, COPRAC Practical Guidance (Nov. 16, 2023)
California lawyers using ChatGPT, CoPilot, or other generative AI tools must protect client confidentiality, verify AI-generated work, supervise AI outputs, disclose AI use where required, and avoid billing for time saved by AI. Misuse of generative AI is a discipline-eligible violation.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Stats. 2026, ch. 179 (SB 813); Cal. Gov. Code §§ 8898-8898.4
California Senate Bill 813, by Senator Jerry McNerney, sets up a voluntary system for independent organizations that check the risks of AI systems and models. Governor Gavin Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, alongside Assembly Bill 1405, which creates a state registry of AI auditors. By January 1, 2028, the state's Government Operations Agency must set the rules for which organizations can be designated as 'independent verification organizations': how to apply, what expertise and independence they need (including limits on being paid in ways that depend on the result), and when a designation can be suspended or taken away. The agency must gather input from working groups that include AI company engineers and AI safety experts and report to the Legislature, and designated organizations must file yearly reports. The law does not require any AI company to use one of these organizations and does not create new liability. It takes effect January 1, 2027.
-
In effect Strength: limited
SB 53 (Frontier AI Safety)
California · Effective January 1, 2026 · SB 53 (Stats. 2025)
The first US frontier-AI safety law in effect: the largest AI model developers must publish safety frameworks and transparency reports, report critical safety incidents to the state, and protect whistleblowers who raise catastrophic-risk concerns.
Federal AI rules that apply in Calexico, California
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Calexico, California. 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 Calexico, California
Are there AI laws in Calexico, California?
What federal AI rules apply in Calexico?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Calexico?
How do I report an AI law violation in Calexico?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Calexico?
Is Calexico regulated by California's consumer privacy act?
Compliance guides for California businesses
Plain-English guides to the California AI and data laws companies most often need to comply with:
California ADMT / automated-decision rules · California deepfake law for business
Have we missed an AI rule in Calexico?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Calexico 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.