AI Laws in Grand Rapids, Michigan
AI Laws USA tracks 30 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Grand Rapids, Michigan: 10+ federal rules, 19 Michigan state-level rules, and 1 local Grand Rapids ordinance. Coverage is strongest on data-center siting and energy, automated decision-making, consumer protection, and government use of AI. 12 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Grand Rapids local AI rules (and Kent County)
1 local AI rule specific to Grand Rapids, Michigan or Kent County.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Grand Rapids MI ALPR under surveillance policy (2026)
Grand Rapids, MI · City of Grand Rapids, Mich. — Administrative Order on ALPR under the Surveillance Technology Policy (Sept. 2026)
Grand Rapids moved its police automated license plate reader system, including Flock cameras, under the city's Surveillance Technology Policy by administrative order from City Manager Mark Washington, announced August 28 and due by mid-September 2026. The gap it closes is a chronological accident: the City Commission first approved an ALPR system in 2012, three years before Grand Rapids adopted its Surveillance Technology Policy in 2015, so the department's plate readers had operated outside the framework built to govern exactly that kind of technology for over a decade. GRPD added Flock cameras in June 2024. Under the order, all governance, oversight, reporting, complaint, audit and transparency rules now apply to any future purchase, renewal or expansion. The 31 existing units may keep operating, but renewal requires Public Safety Committee review and City Commission approval. GRPD's August 25 presentation is accepted as the 2026 annual report, and from 2027 ALPR is folded into regular annual surveillance reporting. The move followed pointed questioning of GRPD and Flock officials over data sharing and ICE access.
Michigan-level AI rules most relevant to Grand Rapids
19 Michigan state rules apply to residents and businesses in Grand Rapids. Showing the 8 most relevant to Grand Rapids's local picture; 11 more are on the Michigan jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines an
Michigan · Effective August 9, 2025 · Adoption and Usage of Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines and Responsibilities
Michigan's Department of Technology, Management and Budget issued guidelines establishing responsibilities for ethical AI use across state agencies, requiring data-classification awareness and human-in-the-loop review of AI-generated content.
-
In effect Strength: limited
MI SAVE Acts (2016 AV package)
Michigan · Effective December 9, 2016 · P.A. 332–335 of 2016
Michigan's 2016 four-bill 'SAVE' package made the state one of the most comprehensive AV jurisdictions: it legalized fully driverless operation, authorized commercial AV networks (ride-hail with self-driving cars), allowed truck platooning, established the American Center for Mobility, and explicitly limited manufacturer liability when third parties convert vehicles to autonomous operation.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Sault Tribe (MI) AI Data Center Moratorium
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians · Effective April 7, 2026 · Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Board Resolution (Apr. 7, 2026)
Sault Tribe Board of Directors voted unanimously to halt any AI data center development on tribal lands indefinitely, citing strain on local resources and uncertain economic benefit. Came after dozens of community members spoke at public comment.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Michigan PSC DTE–Google data center contracts
Michigan · Effective October 1, 2026 · Michigan PSC Case No. U-22058 (order Oct. 1, 2026)
Michigan's Public Service Commission approved DTE Electric's special power contracts with Google for a planned data center in Van Buren Township, on the condition that other customers do not bear the project's costs. The 20-year deal includes a minimum bill of 80% of contracted capacity and an early-exit payment covering at least 15 years of minimum charges. Google must also pay for up to 1,600 MW of renewable energy and 480 MW of battery storage built by DTE.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
MI UIA MIDAS Reform Rules
MI · Effective December 13, 2017 · MCL § 421.62a; 2017 Mich. Pub. Acts 224-228
After Michigan's MIDAS automated fraud-detection system wrongly accused tens of thousands of unemployment claimants of fraud and seized their tax refunds, Michigan adopted statutory and regulatory reforms requiring human review before fraud determinations, restitution for wrongful determinations, and prohibition on fully automated fraud findings.
-
In effect Strength: limited
MI DOI AI Bulletin
MI · Effective August 7, 2024 · Michigan DIFS Bulletin 2024-20-INS (2024-08-07)
The MI Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in MI 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.
-
Proposed / pending
MI HB 6392 tort liability for AI misidentification
Michigan · Mich. HB 6392 (2026)
This Michigan House bill would make companies that provide AI detection tools strictly liable for injury, death or property damage when their tool misidentifies a person or vehicle and police act on that misidentification. Some police and resident reactions would count as foreseeable and would not reduce the provider's liability, and providers could not waive or shift it. It was introduced on Sept. 24, 2026 and sent to the House Judiciary Committee.
-
In effect Strength: limited
MI SOS Deepfake Election Policy
MI · Effective February 13, 2024 · Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932f, enacted by P.A. 265 of 2023
Michigan's Secretary of State adopted a statewide response plan for AI-generated deepfake election content, coordinating with Michigan Cyber Command and Michigan State Police. Local clerks have standardized procedures for documenting and escalating AI deepfake incidents.
Federal AI rules that apply in Grand Rapids, Michigan
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Grand Rapids, Michigan. 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 Grand Rapids, Michigan
Are there AI laws in Grand Rapids, Michigan?
What federal AI rules apply in Grand Rapids?
Does Michigan have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Michigan?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Grand Rapids?
How do I report an AI law violation in Grand Rapids?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Grand Rapids?
Is Grand Rapids regulated by Michigan's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Grand Rapids?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Grand Rapids 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.