AI Laws in Sacramento, California
AI Laws USA tracks 83 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Sacramento, California: 10+ federal rules, 73 California state-level rules (no Sacramento-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, automated decision-making, AI disclosure and transparency, and consumer data privacy. 48 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Sacramento local AI rules (and Sacramento County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Sacramento, California.
- No local entries yet: we don't currently index any Sacramento-specific AI ordinances. Federal and California state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email feedback@ailawsusa.com.
California-level AI rules most relevant to Sacramento
73 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in Sacramento. Showing the 8 most relevant to Sacramento'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
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: 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.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: stronger
California AB 1405 AI auditor registry (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Cal. A.B. 1405, Ch. 178, Stats. 2026 (approved Sept. 9, 2026)
California Assembly Bill 1405 creates a state registry for AI auditors and sets standards for their independence, transparency and integrity. Governor Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, the same day he signed Senate Bill 813, which sets up a framework for independent organizations to assess AI systems. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, and the Government Operations Agency must have the registry running by January 1, 2029, after which AI auditors must be registered. Registered auditors must be independent of the companies they audit, may not audit their own work or seek jobs with the company during an audit, and may not block or punish employee whistleblowers. An auditor who breaks the rules can be removed from the registry and referred to the Attorney General. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan authored the bill.
-
In effect Strength: limited
CA Bar GenAI Guidance
CA · Effective November 16, 2023 · State Bar of California, COPRAC Practical Guidance (Nov. 16, 2023)
California lawyers using ChatGPT, CoPilot, or other generative AI tools must protect client confidentiality, verify AI-generated work, supervise AI outputs, disclose AI use where required, and avoid billing for time saved by AI. Misuse of generative AI is a discipline-eligible violation.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
California SB 813 independent AI verification (2026)
California · Effective January 1, 2027 · Stats. 2026, ch. 179 (SB 813); Cal. Gov. Code §§ 8898-8898.4
California Senate Bill 813, by Senator Jerry McNerney, sets up a voluntary system for independent organizations that check the risks of AI systems and models. Governor Gavin Newsom signed it on September 9, 2026, alongside Assembly Bill 1405, which creates a state registry of AI auditors. By January 1, 2028, the state's Government Operations Agency must set the rules for which organizations can be designated as 'independent verification organizations': how to apply, what expertise and independence they need (including limits on being paid in ways that depend on the result), and when a designation can be suspended or taken away. The agency must gather input from working groups that include AI company engineers and AI safety experts and report to the Legislature, and designated organizations must file yearly reports. The law does not require any AI company to use one of these organizations and does not create new liability. It takes effect January 1, 2027.
-
Vetoed
CA SB 1047 (vetoed)
CA · Cal. SB 1047 (2023-24 Reg. Sess.) — vetoed Sept. 29, 2024
California SB 1047 would have required safety testing, kill-switches, and developer liability for frontier AI models trained above compute/cost thresholds. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 29, 2024 — a landmark veto that reshaped the U.S. frontier-AI policy debate.
-
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.
Federal AI rules that apply in Sacramento, California
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Sacramento, 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 Sacramento, California
Are there AI laws in Sacramento, California?
What federal AI rules apply in Sacramento?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Sacramento?
How do I report an AI law violation in Sacramento?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Sacramento?
Is Sacramento 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 Sacramento?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Sacramento 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.