Home › AI Laws › Minnesota › Saint Paul
AI Laws in Saint Paul, Minnesota
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 23 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Saint Paul, Minnesota: 10+ federal protections, 12 Minnesota state-level rules, and 1 local Saint Paul ordinance. Coverage is strongest on consumer data privacy, education AI, automated decision-making, and data-center siting and energy. 9 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Saint Paul local AI rules (and Ramsey County)
1 local AI rule specific to Saint Paul, Minnesota or Ramsey County.
-
In effect Limited protection
Saint Paul Public Schools
Saint Paul, MN · Effective 2024-10-08 · Saint Paul Public Schools — Generative AI Acceptable Use Guidance (2024-10-08)
Guidance designates Google Gemini, NotebookLM, Seesaw, and Schoology PowerBuddy as approved AI tools for staff (offered through district accounts with enterprise protections), bars use of consumer AI tools with student data, requires teacher disclosure to families when AI is used for instructional design, and prohibits AI-generated discipline recommendations without administrator review.
Minnesota-level AI rules most relevant to Saint Paul
12 Minnesota state rules apply to residents and businesses in Saint Paul. Showing the 8 most relevant to Saint Paul's local picture; 4 more are on the Minnesota jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Limited protection
Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approv
Minnesota State (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities) · Effective 2025-07-03 · Minnesota State systemwide Generative AI guidance and approved-tools policy
Minnesota State issues systemwide generative-AI guidance authorizing secured tools like Microsoft Copilot, blocking services such as Otter.AI and Fireflies.AI for security, and ensuring system data is not used to train external AI models.
-
In effect Limited protection
Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act
Minnesota · Effective 2025-07-31 · 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123 (HF 4757); Minn. Stat. §§ 325M.01–.21
Minnesota's privacy law gives residents data rights plus something unique: the right to question automated profiling decisions with significant effects — including the right to know why the decision was made and what would change the outcome. Full AG enforcement began February 2026.
-
In effect Moderate protection
MN drone-warrant law (2020)
Minnesota · Effective 2020-08-01 · Minn. Stat. § 626.19
Minnesota requires police to get a search warrant before using a drone, with narrow exceptions, and to publish an annual public report listing every drone deployment, purpose, and cost. The annual transparency requirement is among the strongest in any state drone law.
-
In effect Limited protection
Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard
Minnesota · Effective 2024-01-01 · Public Artificial Intelligence Services Security Standard
Minnesota IT Services set a security standard governing state employees' use of public AI services (such as ChatGPT), restricting inputs to public/low-classification data and setting guardrails to prevent breaches of private or sensitive information.
-
Proposed / pending Proposed or pending
SF5231
MN · MN SF5231 (94th Legislature 2025-2026)
Data centers tax exemption repeal; contingent reduction in special education aid appropriation repeal
-
Proposed / pending Proposed or pending
HF5125
MN · MN HF5125 (94th Legislature 2025-2026)
Data centers sales and use tax exemption repealed, and contingent reduction in special education aid appropriations repealed.
-
In effect Limited protection
Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance an
MN · Effective 2026-01-15 · Attorney General Ellison releases consumer alert on DHS' digital surveillance and how to protect your privacy (2026-01-15)
Ellison alert and online reporting tool warn residents about AI-powered ID/tracking using biometric, app, and vehicle data; recommends disabling FaceID/TouchID. Follows expert filings in Kohls v. Ellison deepfake case.
-
In effect Limited protection
Minnesota SF 4097 (social-media algorithm disclosure)
Minnesota · Effective 2025-07-01 · Minn. Stat. 325M.30-325M.34; Laws 2024, ch. 114, art. 3, sec. 63 (SF 4097)
Minnesota requires large social media platforms to publicly explain how their algorithmic ranking systems decide what users see. Among other things, a platform must disclose how its own content-quality judgments and a user's stated content preferences are weighted against other ranking signals. The rules apply to platforms doing business in or targeting Minnesotans that have more than 10,000 monthly active users.
Federal AI rules that apply in Saint Paul, Minnesota
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Saint Paul, Minnesota. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Bartz v. Anthropic
N.D. Cal. · Effective 2025-09-05 · 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 Stronger protection
Benavides v. Tesla (Autopilot)
S.D. Fla. · Effective 2025-08-01 · Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-21940 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025)
A Florida federal jury found Tesla 33% liable in August 2025 for the 2019 death of Naibel Benavides Leon, in a crash involving Autopilot. The jury awarded $243M ($129M compensatory + $200M punitive); in February 2026 the court denied Tesla's post-trial motions and upheld the verdict in full — the first Autopilot wrongful-death verdict against Tesla.
-
In effect Stronger protection
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective 2025-06-23 · 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 Stronger protection
TAKE IT DOWN Act
United States · Effective 2025-05-19 · 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 Stronger protection
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective 2025-04-16 · 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 Stronger protection
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)
D.C. Cir. · Effective 2025-03-18 · 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 Stronger protection
Thomson Reuters v. Ross
D. Del. · Effective 2025-02-11 · Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
Thomson Reuters sued legal-research startup Ross Intelligence in 2020 for copying Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal-research tool. In February 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation) granted summary judgment to Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement and rejected Ross's fair-use defense — the first definitive U.S. ruling on AI-training fair use. No jury trial occurred: a 2023 opinion had denied summary judgment and pointed toward trial, but the court invited renewed briefing and reversed course in the 2025 ruling.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective 2024-11-20 · 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 Stronger protection
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)
United States · Effective 2024-04-01 · 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 Stronger protection
TCPA (AI voice calls)
United States · Effective 2024-02-08 · 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 Saint Paul, Minnesota
Are there AI laws in Saint Paul, Minnesota?
What federal AI rules apply in Saint Paul?
Does Minnesota have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Minnesota?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Saint Paul?
How do I report an AI law violation in Saint Paul?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Saint Paul?
Is Saint Paul regulated by Minnesota's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Saint Paul?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Saint Paul 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.