AI Laws in San Jose, California
AI Laws USA tracks 89 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in San Jose, California: 10+ federal rules, 73 California state-level rules, and 6 local San Jose/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on automated decision-making, consumer protection, AI disclosure and transparency, and consumer data privacy. 54 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
San Jose local AI rules (and Santa Clara County)
6 local AI rules specific to San Jose, California or Santa Clara County.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
San Jose ALPR 30-day retention safeguards (2026)
San Jose, CA · Effective March 10, 2026 · City of San Jose ALPR Use Policy Amendment (City Council unanimous vote, March 10, 2026)
On March 10, 2026, San Jose City Council voted unanimously to tighten safeguards on the city's network of 474 Flock Safety license-plate-reader cameras. The new rules cut the data retention period from one year to 30 days, restrict where cameras can be placed, and limit data-sharing with outside law enforcement agencies to documented criminal investigations. San Jose is the largest U.S. city to have adopted a Government AI Coalition framework, and this vote aligned its ALPR rules with its broader digital-privacy principles.
-
In effect Strength: limited
San José AI Policy
San Jose, CA · City of San José Policy Manual § 1.7.12; GenAI Guidelines (2023, as updated)
San José adopted a citywide AI policy and generative AI guidelines governing how city staff use AI tools. Employees must register AI uses with the city's Privacy and AI team, may not let AI make actionable decisions about residents (like approving applications), and must review AI outputs. San José also founded the GovAI Coalition, whose AI policy templates have been adopted by 100+ public agencies.
-
In effect Strength: limited
San Jose GenAI Guidelines
San Jose, CA · Effective July 25, 2023 · City of San Jose, Generative AI Guidelines (June 12, 2023)
San Jose published one of the first US city-government playbooks for generative AI, requiring staff to log every use of tools like ChatGPT, complete training, and refrain from entering confidential information.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Santa Clara County CA Office of Education
San Jose, CA · Effective October 10, 2024 · Santa Clara County CA Office of Education — AI Guidance for Member Districts (2024-10-10)
County-office guidance to 31 member districts: AI tool vetting framework, model staff/student use policies, data-privacy addendum template for AI vendors, and shared educator PD on responsible AI use.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
San Jose AI Reviews Board
San Jose, CA · Effective August 1, 2023 · City of San Jose, AI Reviews Board (2023)
City of San Jose established an internal AI Reviews Board to review AI tools used by city departments and helped launch the multi-city GovAI Coalition for shared AI procurement standards.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Santa Clara County Surveillance Ordinance
Santa Clara County, CA · Enacted June 7, 2016 · Santa Clara County, Cal., Ordinance Code div. A40 (NS-300.897, 2016)
Santa Clara County passed the nation's first county-level surveillance oversight law in 2016. County departments must get Board of Supervisors approval, publish a surveillance use policy, and file an impact report before acquiring surveillance technology, plus annual reports afterward. Still actively administered by the County Privacy Office.
California-level AI rules most relevant to San Jose
73 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in San Jose. Showing the 8 most relevant to San Jose'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: limited
Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
California · Effective March 30, 2026 · Executive Order N-5-26 - Trusted AI Procurement
This newer California executive order directs DGS and CDT to develop trust-and-safety certifications for state AI contracting (covering CSAM/NCII, harmful bias, and civil-rights violations), reforms to bar contracting with entities that unlawfully undermine privacy or civil liberties, and CDT guidance on watermarking AI-generated media.
-
In effect Strength: limited
UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance frame
University of California (UC System) · Effective October 6, 2021 · UC Responsible AI Principles and AI Council governance framework
UC adopted its Responsible AI Principles on October 6, 2021 (describing itself as one of the first universities to do so) and established a systemwide AI Council in May 2022 that issues guidance, training, and risk assessments for AI use across its campuses.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application o
California · Effective January 13, 2025 · Attorney General Bonta Legal Advisories on the Application of California Law to AI
California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued two legal advisories clarifying that entities developing, selling, or using AI must comply with existing California consumer-protection, civil-rights, competition, data-privacy, and election-misinformation laws, plus new AI laws effective January 1, 2025, with a second advisory targeting healthcare entities.
-
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.
-
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: limited
BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) · Effective September 13, 2018 · BART Surveillance Technology Ordinance
BART became the first transit district in the country to adopt a CCOPS-style ordinance requiring board approval, a surveillance impact report, a use policy, and annual reports before acquiring surveillance technology.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intell
California Department of Education · Effective January 1, 2026 · Guidance for the Safe and Effective Use of Artificial Intelligence in California Public Schools
California's education department issued voluntary guidance for K-12 districts covering human-centered AI, AI literacy, equitable access, academic integrity, data privacy (FERPA/COPPA/CCPA/SOPIPA), and procurement.
Federal AI rules that apply in San Jose, California
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including San Jose, 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 San Jose, California
Are there AI laws in San Jose, California?
What federal AI rules apply in San Jose?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in San Jose?
How do I report an AI law violation in San Jose?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in San Jose?
Is San Jose 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 San Jose?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a San Jose 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.