AI Laws in Glendale, California
AI Laws USA tracks 85 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Glendale, California: 10+ federal rules, 73 California state-level rules, and 2 local Glendale/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, automated decision-making, AI disclosure and transparency, and consumer data privacy. 49 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Glendale local AI rules (and Los Angeles County)
2 local AI rules specific to Glendale, California or Los Angeles County.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Glendale CA
Glendale, CA · Effective September 17, 2024 · Glendale CA — Generative AI Use Policy (City Manager Directive) (2024-09-17)
City Manager directive adopted via Council action: requires departments to use only city-approved AI tools, disclose AI assistance in public communications, and route AI procurement through IT review. Surfaced through Glendale's PrimeGov agenda packet.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
LA County ALPR immigration-data safeguards motion (Sept. 2025)
Los Angeles County, CA · Enacted September 16, 2025 · LA County Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings, Sept. 16, 2025, item 25-5022 (4-1); LASD Report Back, Dec. 11, 2025
On September 16, 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to ask the Sheriff's Department to tighten its rules on license plate reader data. The board asked that the data never be shared for civil immigration enforcement unless state or county law requires it or a judge issues a warrant. It also asked for written sign-off on any disclosure, reports twice a year on who accessed the data, yearly privacy training, and annual compliance reviews by the Inspector General. The Sheriff runs independently, so the motion is a request. In December 2025 the Sheriff reported that a revised policy had been drafted, but it was not yet in force.
California-level AI rules most relevant to Glendale
73 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in Glendale. Showing the 8 most relevant to Glendale'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.
-
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.
-
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: limited
UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame
University of California (UC System) · Effective October 6, 2021 · UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance framework
UC adopted its Responsible AI Principles on October 6, 2021 (describing itself as one of the first universities to do so) and established a systemwide AI Council in May 2022 that issues guidance, training, and risk assessments for AI use across its campuses.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: stronger
California SB 1119 Adam's Law, companion chatbots (2026)
California · Effective July 1, 2027 · Cal. S.B. 1119 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 190 — Adam's Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 21810 et seq. (approved September 10, 2026; main duties operative July 1, 2027)
California Senate Bill 1119, which the law itself names "Adam's Law" (press coverage calls it the Adam Raine Law), was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 190). Starting July 1, 2027, companies that run companion chatbots must protect users under 18. By default, a child can chat for no more than one hour at a time and two hours a day, and only a parent can change those limits. Operators must have a crisis plan that points a child to crisis services, must tell a parent as soon as practicable if the chatbot detects a credible threat of suicide or self-harm, must assess risks to children before launching a new or substantially changed chatbot, and must publish a child safety policy. Public prosecutors can seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child, or $15,000 if the violation was intentional, and a harmed child or their parent can sue for actual damages.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: stronger
California AB 1709 addictive feeds and under-16 age restriction (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1709 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2026, ch. 183 — Covered platforms: age restriction: e-Safety Advisory Commission; adds Bus. & Prof. Code § 22682 et seq. and Gov. Code § 11530 et seq.
California Assembly Bill 1709 bars covered platforms — social media and similar apps and websites — from giving users under 16 any 'addictive feature': a personalized, engagement-driven feed, autoplay, or any other feature the Attorney General defines by regulation. Platforms must verify ages and take reasonable measures to keep these features away from under-16s. A platform can still let under-16s have accounts if those accounts have no addictive features; otherwise it must delete under-16 accounts and their personal information. The Attorney General or a local prosecutor can sue for up to $50,000 per affected child for knowing violations ($25,000 if negligent). The law also creates a seven-member, purely advisory e-Safety Advisory Commission. Governor Newsom signed it on September 10, 2026 (Chapter 183); as a regular statute it takes effect January 1, 2027. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed it, arguing it works as a social media ban for under-16s and violates the First Amendment — while supporting two digital-literacy bills (AB 2071 and AB 2298) signed in the same package. No court challenge had been located as of late September 2026.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: moderate
California AB 1043 Digital Age Assurance Act (+ AB 1856)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. AB 1043 (2025-2026 Reg. Sess.), the Digital Age Assurance Act (signed Oct. 13, 2025, operative Jan. 1, 2027), as extended by Cal. AB 1856 (2026)
California's Digital Age Assurance Act puts age-checking at the operating system layer rather than at each app or website. When someone sets up a device account, the OS provider — Apple, Google and the like — must present an interface asking for the user's birth date or age. The OS then passes along, to any app developer who asks, WHICH OF FOUR AGE BRACKETS that user falls into: under 13, 13 to under 16, 16 to under 18, or at least 18. It does NOT verify that the answer is true, and it does NOT hand over the birth date itself. App developers must request that signal when an app is downloaded and when it launches, and must treat it as the primary indicator of the user's age unless they have clear and convincing evidence otherwise. The California Attorney General enforces it, at $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations and $7,500 per affected child for intentional ones. There is no private right of action. AB 1856, signed in the September 2026 child-safety package, clarifies and extends this — formalizing the non-identifying bracket signals from both operating systems and app stores, and protecting open-source systems from the compliance burden. WHY THIS BELONGS IN A DATASET ABOUT AI PROTECTIONS: it is the plumbing the rest of California's child-safety AI law depends on. AB 1709 bans addictive feed features for users under 16 and expects platforms to establish age through AB 1043. SB 1119, Adam's Law, imposes session limits, parental notification and independent child-safety audits on AI companion chatbots used by minors. Both need to know who is a minor. This statute is how they find out.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
California · Effective March 30, 2026 · Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
This newer California executive order directs DGS and CDT to develop trust-and-safety certifications for state AI contracting (covering CSAM/NCII, harmful bias, and civil-rights violations), reforms to bar contracting with entities that unlawfully undermine privacy or civil liberties, and CDT guidance on watermarking AI-generated media.
Federal AI rules that apply in Glendale, California
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Glendale, 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 Glendale, California
Are there AI laws in Glendale, California?
What federal AI rules apply in Glendale?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Glendale?
How do I report an AI law violation in Glendale?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Glendale?
Is Glendale 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 Glendale?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Glendale 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.