AI Laws in Pierre, South Dakota
AI Laws USA tracks 14 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Pierre, South Dakota: 10+ federal rules, 4 South Dakota state-level rules (no Pierre-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on deepfakes, AI-generated images, AI disclosure and transparency, and children's online safety. 3 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Pierre local AI rules (and Hughes County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Pierre, South Dakota.
- No local entries yet: we don't currently index any Pierre-specific AI ordinances. Federal and South Dakota state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email feedback@ailawsusa.com.
South Dakota-level AI rules
4 South Dakota state rules apply to residents and businesses in Pierre. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Strength: limited
SD AI CSAM Law
South Dakota · Effective February 13, 2024 · 2024 SD SB 79
South Dakota expanded its child pornography statutes to explicitly cover AI-generated and deepfake sexual imagery involving minors — including fully synthetic images where no real child was used.
-
In effect Strength: limited
SD Election Deepfake Law
South Dakota · Effective July 1, 2025 · SD SB 164 (2025); signed Mar. 31, 2025; eff. July 1, 2025
South Dakota requires that intentionally harmful, unlabeled AI deepfakes of politicians distributed within 90 days of an election carry an AI-manipulation disclosure; violators face civil and criminal liability. Broadcasters, newspapers, websites, and radio stations are exempt, as are satire and parody.
-
In effect Strength: limited
State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Gui
South Dakota · Effective January 1, 2024 · State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines & Acceptable State Use
The Bureau of Information and Telecommunications sets acceptable-use guidelines for generative AI in state government, requiring employees to fact-check, edit, and treat AI output as a starting point while managing bias, privacy, and cybersecurity risks.
-
Expired
SB239
SD · SD SB239 (2026 Regular Session)
Modify provisions relating to the reinvestment payment program, and relating to the purchasing of goods and services used by projects approved for the reinvestment payment program.
Federal AI rules that apply in Pierre, South Dakota
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Pierre, South Dakota. 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 Pierre, South Dakota
Are there AI laws in Pierre, South Dakota?
What federal AI rules apply in Pierre?
Does South Dakota have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in South Dakota?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Pierre?
How do I report an AI law violation in Pierre?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Pierre?
Is Pierre regulated by South Dakota's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Pierre?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Pierre 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.