Home › AI Laws › Utah › Salt Lake City
AI Laws in Salt Lake City, Utah
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 33 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Salt Lake City, Utah: 10+ federal protections, 22 Utah state-level rules, and 1 local Salt Lake City ordinance. Coverage is strongest on AI disclosure and transparency, consumer protection, government use of AI, and automated decision-making. 17 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Salt Lake City local AI rules (and Salt Lake County)
1 local AI rule specific to Salt Lake City, Utah or Salt Lake County.
-
In effect Limited protection
SLC GenAI Policy
Salt Lake City, UT · Effective 2024-06-01 · Salt Lake City IMS, GenAI Acceptable Use Policy (2024)
Salt Lake City Information Management Services administrative policy on employee use of generative AI tools with disclosure and prohibited-data rules.
Utah-level AI rules most relevant to Salt Lake City
22 Utah state rules apply to residents and businesses in Salt Lake City. Showing the 8 most relevant to Salt Lake City's local picture; 14 more are on the Utah jurisdiction page.
-
In effect Moderate protection
UT AI Policy Act (SB 149)
UT · Effective 2024-05-01 · Utah Code §§ 13-2-12, 13-72-101 et seq.; SB 149 (2024)
Utah was the first state to require regulated professionals (e.g., doctors, lawyers, accountants) to clearly disclose when consumers are interacting with generative AI, and to make companies liable under existing consumer-protection law for any deception their GenAI commits. It also created the Office of AI Policy and a regulatory sandbox.
-
In effect Limited protection
UT HB 101 (2019 AV statute)
Utah · Effective 2019-05-14 · Utah Code §§ 41-26-101 et seq.
Utah's AV law expressly allows fully driverless operation, treats the automated driving system as the 'driver' for traffic-law purposes, authorizes commercial AV networks, and preempts local AV regulation.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Moderate protection
Utah SB 319 (health insurer AI)
Utah · Effective 2027-01-01 · Utah SB 319 (2026), enacted March 19, 2026, eff. Jan. 1, 2027
Utah's SB 319, enacted March 19, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, requires health insurers to disclose to the Utah Insurance Department, to providers, and to enrollees whether AI is used to review prior-authorization requests. It also requires that a health professional's adverse determination be based on their own independent medical judgment — not dictated by an AI recommendation.
-
In effect Limited protection
Utah S.B. 180 (AI-written police reports need a disclaimer + officer sign-off)
Utah · Effective 2025-05-07 · Utah Laws 2025, S.B. 180; Utah Code 53-25-601, 53-25-602
Utah requires every law enforcement agency to adopt a written policy governing employee use of generative AI. Any police report or law enforcement record created wholly or partly with generative AI must contain a disclaimer that it includes AI-generated content, and the author must certify they personally read and reviewed it for accuracy.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Limited protection
Utah HB 276 Provenance Act (AI-content labels + platform provenance duties)
Utah · Effective 2027-01-01 · Utah Code 13-72c-101 to -301, 63A-16-215 (H.B. 276, 2026)
This part of Utah's AI Modifications law requires large generative-AI providers to embed a hidden (latent) disclosure in AI-generated or substantially AI-altered image, audio, and video content. Large online platforms must detect provenance data, let users inspect it, and must not strip compliant provenance or digital signatures. From January 1, 2028, capture-device makers must embed a latent disclosure by default. The law also directs the state CIO to set provenance standards for digital content on public-facing state-agency webpages.
-
In effect Limited protection
Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nation
Utah · Effective 2026-01-17 · Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nationwide Bipartisan AI Task Force
Utah's Attorney General co-launched a nationwide bipartisan attorneys-general task force to identify emerging AI harms and develop safeguards AI developers should follow to protect the public, especially children.
-
In effect Limited protection
Utah S.B. 226 (must disclose you're talking to AI on request; AI use no excuse)
Utah · Effective 2025-05-07 · Utah Laws 2025, S.B. 226; Utah Code 13-75-101 to 13-75-106
Utah requires businesses using generative AI in consumer interactions to come clean about it. If a consumer clearly asks whether they are dealing with AI, a supplier must disclose they are interacting with generative AI and not a human. People in licensed occupations must prominently disclose AI use up front in 'high-risk' interactions (health, financial, legal, mental-health advice or sensitive data). A safe harbor applies for clear self-identification, and it is no defense that the AI made the offending statement.
-
In effect Limited protection
Utah AI Policy Act
Utah · Effective 2024-05-01 · Utah Code § 13-72-101 et seq. (SB 149, 2024; amended 2025)
The first state generative-AI consumer law: businesses can't hide behind AI — they remain liable under consumer protection law for what their chatbots say. People in regulated occupations (like healthcare providers) must proactively disclose AI use in high-risk interactions, and any business must disclose AI use when clearly asked.
Federal AI rules that apply in Salt Lake City, Utah
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Salt Lake City, Utah. 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 Salt Lake City, Utah
Are there AI laws in Salt Lake City, Utah?
What federal AI rules apply in Salt Lake City?
Does Utah have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Utah?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Salt Lake City?
How do I report an AI law violation in Salt Lake City?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Salt Lake City?
Is Salt Lake City regulated by Utah's consumer privacy act?
Compliance guides for Utah businesses
Plain-English guides to the Utah AI & data laws companies most often need to comply with:
Have we missed an AI rule in Salt Lake City?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Salt Lake City 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.