AI Laws in Frederick, Maryland
AI Laws USA tracks 28 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Frederick, Maryland: 10+ federal rules, 16 Maryland state-level rules, and 2 local Frederick/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on automated decision-making, government use of AI, consumer protection, and AI disclosure and transparency. 16 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Frederick local AI rules (and Frederick County)
2 local AI rules specific to Frederick, Maryland or Frederick County.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Frederick MD
Frederick, MD · Effective November 21, 2024 · Frederick MD — City Generative AI Use Policy (2024-11-21)
Mayor & Board of Aldermen adoption: citywide AI policy with vetted-tool list, bar on PII entry into consumer AI, disclosure expectations for AI-assisted public communications, and IT review of AI procurement.
-
Blocked / in litigation
MD Supreme Court blocks Frederick County DC zoning referendum
Frederick County, MD · Frederick County, Md. data center zoning referendum litigation — Md. Supreme Court, decided 2026-06-30 (written opinion pending at time of coverage)
The Maryland Supreme Court ruled June 30, 2026 that Frederick County's December 2025 approval of a 2,600-acre 'critical digital infrastructure overlay zone' for data centers is not subject to a citizen referendum under the county charter, upholding a lower court and blocking a ballot question more than 21,000 residents had petitioned for. The court also found the proposed ballot question itself legally deficient (unclear map depiction, incomplete ordinance text).
Maryland-level AI rules most relevant to Frederick
16 Maryland state rules apply to residents and businesses in Frederick. Showing the 8 most relevant to Frederick's local picture; 8 more are on the Maryland jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Maryland AI Ready Schools Act, SB 720 (2026)
Maryland · Effective June 1, 2026 · Md. S.B. 720 (2026 Reg. Sess.), Md. Laws ch. 634 (Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act), effective June 1, 2026
Maryland enacted the Artificial Intelligence Ready Schools Act on May 26, 2026, when Governor Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 720 into law as Chapter 634. It took effect on June 1, 2026. The law does five things. It requires the Maryland State Department of Education to give AI guidance and best practices to local education agencies, educators, parents and students. It requires every local school system to CREATE ITS OWN POLICY governing the use of artificial intelligence — that is the mandate that produced the wave of Maryland district AI policies in summer 2026. It establishes the Maryland AI Education Collaborative on Artificial Intelligence in K-12 Education to study, report on and make recommendations about AI use in each local school system; the Collaborative is temporary and ends May 31, 2028. It requires MSDE to develop and publish a RUBRIC and other evaluative tools so districts can assess AI products, and districts must use that rubric, rather than each district improvising its own vendor review. And it requires AI literacy to be built into the state's computer science and workforce preparation standards for kindergarten through grade twelve by June 1, 2027, alongside professional development for educators and school leaders. The compliance clock is the part districts feel: each local school system must have an aligned policy within 120 days of the release of the MSDE guidance. Caroline County's policy, indexed separately, is one of the resulting district policies.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Maryland Online Data Privacy Act
Maryland · Effective October 1, 2025 · 2024 Md. Laws ch. 440 (SB 541); Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-4601–14-4626
Maryland's privacy law is stricter than most: it prohibits processing sensitive personal data unless strictly necessary for the requested service. Consumers can access, correct, delete, and port their data, and opt out of automated profiling and targeted advertising. AG enforcement began April 2026.
-
In effect Strength: limited
The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation
Maryland · Effective May 1, 2025 · The State of Maryland's Responsible AI Policy Implementation Guidance (Version 1.0)
Maryland's Department of Information Technology guidance operationalizes the state's Responsible AI Policy, requiring agencies to designate an AI Lead, submit AI use cases through a risk-based intake process, complete Algorithmic Impact Assessments for high-risk systems, and document AI systems in a public inventory.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Maryland EO 01.01.2026.16 data center framework (2026)
Maryland · Effective September 23, 2026 · Md. Exec. Order 01.01.2026.16 (Sept. 23, 2026)
Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed an executive order on September 23, 2026 that sets one statewide review process for large data centers, meaning those with 25 megawatts or more of peak electric demand. A new Maryland Data Center Accountability Task Force will judge each project on five principles: ratepayer and grid protection, economic benefit, community voice, environmental protection, and transparency. Each project gets a public rating of Aligned, Conditionally Aligned or Not Aligned. For projects rated Not Aligned, or that never ask for a rating, state agencies will not offer letters of support, advocacy or incentives, and will hold off on substantive permit review until local land-use approvals are in place. The order also bars executive agencies from signing non-disclosure agreements with data center developers, and creates a public Data Center Dashboard updated monthly.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Maryland AI Governance Act (2024)
Maryland · Effective July 1, 2024 · 2024 Md. Laws ch. 496 (SB 818)
This law sets up a governance framework for how Maryland state government builds, buys, deploys, and uses artificial intelligence. Each state government unit must inventory the systems it uses that employ high-risk AI and conduct regular impact assessments. The Department of Information Technology is directed to develop and adopt policies covering the development, procurement, deployment, use, and ongoing assessment of high-risk AI systems.
-
In effect Strength: limited
MD DOI AI Bulletin
MD · Effective April 22, 2024 · Maryland Insurance Administration Bulletin 24-11 (2024-04-22)
The MD Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in MD 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.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Maryland Predatory Pricing Act (surveillance pricing)
Maryland · Effective October 1, 2026 · 2026 Md. Laws ch. 154 (HB 895)
This law bars food retailers and third-party delivery service providers from using a consumer's personal data or dynamic (surveillance) pricing to set a higher price for tax-exempt food for a specific consumer. It also prohibits using protected-class data to offer, advertise, or sell goods in a way that withholds an accommodation or advantage from the consumer the data pertains to. Violations are treated as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
MD HB 1339 (Automated Decision Systems, 2026)
Maryland · Effective October 1, 2026 · Md. HB 1339 (2026 Reg. Sess.)
Maryland employers that use automated decision systems in hiring, promotion, or termination decisions must disclose to applicants and employees that an automated system is being used. Employers must also conduct and retain impact assessments evaluating whether their ADS produces disparate outcomes by race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Penalties run up to $10,000 per violation. Takes effect October 1, 2026.
Federal AI rules that apply in Frederick, Maryland
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Frederick, Maryland. 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 Frederick, Maryland
Are there AI laws in Frederick, Maryland?
What federal AI rules apply in Frederick?
Does Maryland have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Maryland?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Frederick?
How do I report an AI law violation in Frederick?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Frederick?
Is Frederick regulated by Maryland's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Frederick?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Frederick 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.