AI Laws in Eugene, Oregon
AI Laws USA tracks 27 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Eugene, Oregon: 10+ federal rules, 14 Oregon state-level rules, and 3 local Eugene/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on government use of AI, consumer data privacy, consumer protection, and automated decision-making. 15 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Eugene local AI rules (and Lane County)
3 local AI rules specific to Eugene, Oregon or Lane County.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Eugene Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Eugene, OR · Effective September 14, 2020 · Ord. 20618 (2020-09-14)
Requires council approval and impact reports for any city surveillance acquisition or use.
-
Expired
Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered
Eugene, OR · Eugene ends Flock Safety ALPR contract after council-ordered pause
After the City Council voted 8-0 in October 2025 to pause the cameras over federal-misuse fears, Eugene Police ended the Flock contract on December 5, 2025 citing data-security and community-expectation concerns.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Lane County OR
Lane County, OR · Effective August 19, 2025 · Lane County Administrator policy (2025) (2025-08-19)
Lane County OR adopted generative AI use policy for county employees: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires departmental approval, mandates human review of AI outputs, and requires disclosure of AI assistance in resident-facing communications.
Oregon-level AI rules most relevant to Eugene
14 Oregon state rules apply to residents and businesses in Eugene. Showing the 8 most relevant to Eugene's local picture; 6 more are on the Oregon jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Oregon SB 1516 — ALPR limits and vendor liability (2026)
Oregon · Effective March 31, 2026 · Or. Laws 2026, ch. 77 (SB 1516), §§ 3-9
Oregon's SB 1516, signed March 31, 2026 and effective at once, limits how police can use automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras. Police may use them only for listed purposes, such as finding vehicles linked to crimes, arrest warrants or missing people, uninsured or unregistered vehicles, parking or controlling secured areas. Plate data must be deleted after 30 days unless it relates to a criminal investigation or court case. ALPR vendors may not access, sell or share the data, and a person whose data a vendor misuses on purpose or through gross negligence can sue for damages. Lawmakers have said they may push for a full ban on Flock-style cameras in 2027.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)
Oregon · Effective February 11, 2025 · Responsible AI Usage Policy (107-004-190)
Oregon Enterprise Information Services establishes enterprise-wide governance for generative and agentic AI across executive-branch agencies, requiring AI adoption plans, human review of outputs, approval of new AI uses, and use of only approved tools.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms G
Oregon Department of Education · Effective November 1, 2023 · Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in K-12 Classrooms Guidance
Oregon's education department maintains generative AI guidance and a companion 'Developing Policy and Protocols' document to help districts adopt safe, ethical, equitable AI policies in K-12 classrooms.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
OR weaponized-drone ban
Oregon · Effective July 29, 2013 · Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 837.300–837.380
Oregon prohibits anyone from operating a weaponized drone, requires law-enforcement drones to be authorized for specific missions, and provides a civil action for property owners whose airspace is repeatedly invaded by drones flying below 400 feet.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
OR PUC Data Center Rate Class
OR · Effective December 4, 2024 · Or. PUC Order No. 24-447
Oregon's Public Utility Commission established a separate large-load rate class — covering data centers, crypto, and AI compute customers — to protect residential customers from cost-shifting and require minimum-take obligations. PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric must apply the new tariffs to incoming AI data centers.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Oregon state-land data center transaction pause (2026)
Oregon · Effective September 8, 2026 · Oregon — Governor's directive pausing state land transactions and permits for new data centers (issued on or about September 8, 2026; effective through July 1, 2027)
Governor Tina Kotek ordered Oregon state agencies to immediately stop processing unapproved land transactions and permits for new data center projects on public land, a pause that runs through July 1, 2027. It covers easements, leases, rentals, land-use permits, and sales or transfers of state-owned property for data centers. The reach of this measure is specific and should not be overstated: it governs what the state does with land it owns. It is not a statewide moratorium on data centers, and it does not restrict a developer who buys private land and goes to a city or county for approval. What it does is remove the state itself as a supplier of data center sites for nearly a year. Kotek's stated reason is that rapid data center growth should not shift utility and infrastructure costs onto Oregonians. The order follows her earlier decision to block the sale of 32 acres of state land at the Mill Creek Corporate Center in Salem that had been proposed for a data center, and it sits on top of the 2025 POWER Act, which raised electricity rates for data center corporations while lowering them for other Portland General Electric customers. An advisory committee formed in January 2026 is due to deliver recommendations by the end of the year, which the Governor plans to turn into legislation in the 2027 session. Demonstrators at the Capitol the same week pressed her to go further than state land.
-
In effect Strength: limited
OR AG Rosenblum
OR · Effective December 24, 2024 · OR AG Rosenblum — AI Guidance (UTPA, OCPA, Equality Act) (2024-12-24)
Clarifies that Oregon's UTPA, OCPA, and Equality Act apply to AI absent AI-specific law. Misrepresenting AI capabilities, discriminatory outcomes, and processing biometric/sensitive data without consent are actionable.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for D
Oregon Public Utility Commission (Portland General Electric) · Effective May 7, 2026 · Order 26-154 Approving PGE Large-Load Tariff Framework for Data Centers
The Oregon PUC approved a large-load tariff for data centers exceeding 20 MW that requires customers to fund 100% of distribution upgrades, sign 10-to-30-year contracts, pay minimum demand charges at 90% of contracted capacity, and adds a 1 cent/kWh surcharge on projects over 100 MW to offset residential and low-income customer costs. In July 2026 the PUC approved PGE's compliance rate filing implementing the framework: data-center customers' rates rise about 29.7% while residential bills drop about 1.3%.
Federal AI rules that apply in Eugene, Oregon
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Eugene, Oregon. 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 Eugene, Oregon
Are there AI laws in Eugene, Oregon?
What federal AI rules apply in Eugene?
Does Oregon have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Oregon?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Eugene?
How do I report an AI law violation in Eugene?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Eugene?
Is Eugene regulated by Oregon's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Eugene?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Eugene 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.