AI Laws in Olathe, Kansas
AI Laws USA tracks 17 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Olathe, Kansas: 10+ federal rules, 6 Kansas state-level rules, and 1 local Olathe ordinance. Coverage is strongest on non-consensual intimate imagery, AI-generated images, automated decision-making, and children's online safety. 6 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Olathe local AI rules (and Johnson County)
1 local AI rule specific to Olathe, Kansas or Johnson County.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Olathe KS
Olathe, KS · Effective February 18, 2025 · Olathe KS — Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy (Council Adoption) (2025-02-18)
Council-adopted citywide AI acceptable use policy: bar on entry of confidential/PII data into consumer AI, required disclosure of AI assistance in public communications, IT review for any new AI procurement, and prohibition on AI as sole basis for personnel decisions.
Kansas-level AI rules
6 Kansas state rules apply to residents and businesses in Olathe. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Strength: limited
KS Synthetic CSAM Law
Kansas · Effective July 1, 2026 · KS HB 2183, 2025-26 Reg. Sess., approved by Governor Feb. 5, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026
Kansas updated its child sexual exploitation and privacy statutes to prohibit creation and distribution of visual depictions where the person depicted is indistinguishable from a real child, including AI-generated and morphed imagery. The law also addresses unlawful transmission of such visual depictions and breach of privacy. Signed by the governor February 5, 2026; took effect July 1, 2026 as part of the 124-law Kansas effective date batch.
-
In effect Strength: limited
State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (P
Kansas · Effective July 31, 2023 · State of Kansas Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy (PPM 8200.00)
The Kansas Office of Information Technology Services enterprise policy sets acceptable-use rules for generative AI, requiring human review of all AI outputs, barring Restricted Use Information from AI tools, and imposing vendor disclosure and data-control requirements.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Kansas HB 2479 (AI images in blackmail law)
Kansas · Effective April 9, 2026 · 2026 Kan. HB 2479, amending K.S.A. 21-5428 (blackmail)
Kansas's blackmail law now expressly covers threats to release a nude or sexual image, video, or recording of an identifiable person even when that depiction was made or altered by artificial intelligence. It applies whether or not the person was involved in producing any original image, so threatening someone with an AI-generated 'deepfake' of them can be prosecuted as blackmail. Existing criminal penalties for blackmail apply.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Kansas HB 2537 'Caleb's Law' (AI sextortion)
Kansas · Effective April 6, 2026 · 2026 Kan. HB 2537 ('Caleb's Law'), amending K.S.A. 21-5515 (sexual extortion)
Kansas's sexual-extortion statute now defines the covered 'image, video, or other recording' to include any depiction created, altered, or modified by artificial intelligence to appear to show a person, whether or not that person was part of any original recording. This means demands or threats backed by AI-fabricated sexual imagery fall within the crime of sexual extortion. The same act, known as 'Caleb's Law,' also raises penalties when an adult offender targets a victim under 18 or a dependent adult and creates aggravated sexual-extortion offenses.
-
In effect Strength: limited
KS AI Foreign Platforms Ban
Kansas · Effective April 8, 2025 · 2025 Kan. Sess. Laws ch. 84 (Sub. HB 2313), approved Apr. 8, 2025
Kansas prohibits state employees from using AI platforms controlled by foreign adversary countries — including DeepSeek and any Chinese-owned AI models — on state-issued devices and networks. Agencies must deactivate and delete any existing accounts with such platforms.
-
Expired
SB526
KS · KS SB526 (2025-2026 Regular Session)
Requiring data centers to be located on land that was zoned for industrial or manufacturing uses or was not zoned on July 1, 2025, to qualify for the sales tax exemption for qualified data centers.
Federal AI rules that apply in Olathe, Kansas
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Olathe, Kansas. 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 Olathe, Kansas
Are there AI laws in Olathe, Kansas?
What federal AI rules apply in Olathe?
Does Kansas have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Kansas?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Olathe?
How do I report an AI law violation in Olathe?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Olathe?
Is Olathe regulated by Kansas's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Olathe?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Olathe 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.