AI Laws in Sandy, Utah
AI Laws USA tracks 31 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Sandy, Utah: 10+ federal rules, 21 Utah state-level rules (no Sandy-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on AI disclosure and transparency, government use of AI, consumer protection, and AI-generated images. 17 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Sandy local AI rules (and Salt Lake County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Sandy, Utah.
- No local entries yet: we don't currently index any Sandy-specific AI ordinances. Federal and Utah state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email feedback@ailawsusa.com.
Utah-level AI rules most relevant to Sandy
21 Utah state rules apply to residents and businesses in Sandy. Showing the 8 most relevant to Sandy's local picture; 13 more are on the Utah jurisdiction page.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
Utah HB 276 Provenance Act (AI-content labels + platform provenance duties)
Utah · Effective January 1, 2027 · 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 Strength: moderate
Utah EO 2026-08 pro-human AI in state government
Utah · Effective October 6, 2026 · Utah Exec. Order No. 2026-08 (Oct. 6, 2026)
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed an executive order on Oct. 6, 2026 setting rules for how executive-branch agencies use artificial intelligence. Agencies must avoid AI tools that do not follow the state's 'pro-human' principles, document how AI systems and their inputs and outputs figure in decisions that affect the public, and have staff complete AI literacy training. The Department of Government Operations must keep human-in-the-loop review for determinations affecting individual rights when helping agencies deploy AI.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Utah HB 76 data center water transparency (2026)
Utah · Effective March 23, 2026 · Utah H.B. 76 (2026 Gen. Sess.) (Data Center Water Transparency Amendments)
Utah's Data Center Water Transparency Amendments, House Bill 76, were signed on March 23, 2026. The law works at two moments. Before construction, a large data center must submit its projected water use along with plans for discharge, treatment and water reuse — so the question is answered while the project can still be changed, not after it is built. Then, once operating, any data center withdrawing 75 acre-feet of water or more a year must report annually on its water use and conservation efforts, including where the water comes from, what it is used for, and water quality. A facility counts as a large data center if it is at least 10,000 square feet, uses network servers, and withdraws 75 acre-feet annually. The results go online. Individual figures are anonymised, but totals are aggregated and released publicly — a compromise that gives the public a real number for the state's data center water draw while withholding facility-level detail. Utah's law is traceable to a specific piece of research: a paper on data center water consumption is credited with prompting the legislation.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Utah S.B. 180 (AI-written police reports need a disclaimer + officer sign-off)
Utah · Effective May 7, 2025 · 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.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Attorneys General Derek Brown and Jeff Jackson Launch Nation
Utah · Effective January 17, 2026 · 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 Strength: limited
UT HB 101 (2019 AV statute)
Utah · Effective May 14, 2019 · 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.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Utah S.B. 226 (must disclose you're talking to AI on request; AI use no excuse)
Utah · Effective May 7, 2025 · 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 Strength: limited
Utah AI Policy Act
Utah · Effective May 1, 2024 · 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 Sandy, Utah
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Sandy, Utah. 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 Sandy, Utah
Are there AI laws in Sandy, Utah?
What federal AI rules apply in Sandy?
Does Utah have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Utah?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Sandy?
How do I report an AI law violation in Sandy?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Sandy?
Is Sandy regulated by Utah's consumer privacy act?
Compliance guides for Utah businesses
Plain-English guides to the Utah AI and data laws companies most often need to comply with:
Have we missed an AI rule in Sandy?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Sandy 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.