AI Laws in Santa Cruz, California
AI Laws USA tracks 87 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Santa Cruz, California: 10+ federal rules, 73 California state-level rules, and 4 local Santa Cruz/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on consumer protection, automated decision-making, AI disclosure and transparency, and government use of AI. 51 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Santa Cruz local AI rules (and Santa Cruz County)
4 local AI rules specific to Santa Cruz, California or Santa Cruz County.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Santa Cruz Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective June 23, 2020 · Ord. 2020-09 (2020-06-23)
First U.S. city to ban predictive policing; also bans city use of facial recognition.
-
Expired
Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety
Santa Cruz, CA · Santa Cruz City Council votes 6-1 to terminate Flock Safety ALPR contract
The Santa Cruz City Council voted 6-1 to terminate its Flock contract with 30 days' notice after reports that plate data had been searched by out-of-state agencies on behalf of federal law enforcement including ICE in violation of state law.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and f
Santa Cruz, CA · Effective June 23, 2020 · Ordinance banning municipal use of predictive policing and facial recognition technology
Santa Cruz became the first U.S. city to bar its police department from using predictive policing (and facial recognition) technology unless the City Council finds by resolution that it is peer-reviewed, unbiased, and protective of civil rights.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Santa Cruz County AI Policy
Santa Cruz County, CA · Effective September 19, 2023 · County of Santa Cruz, AI Policy (Sept. 19, 2023)
Santa Cruz County adopted one of the earliest county-level AI policies in the US, approved in September 2023 and incorporated into the county's procedures manual. It governs how county employees may use AI (including generative AI), with safeguards for sensitive data and human accountability for outputs.
California-level AI rules most relevant to Santa Cruz
73 California state rules apply to residents and businesses in Santa Cruz. Showing the 8 most relevant to Santa Cruz'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
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
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
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: 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
LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) · Effective February 27, 2025 · LA Metro AI Weapons-Detection Pilot Expansion (Evolv/pillar scanners plus AI-CCTV mobile detection)
LA Metro's board voted 10-0 to expand a one-year weapons-detection pilot using AI-powered pillar scanners and AI-CCTV mobile detection to identify concealed weapons on riders at busy stations and on buses.
-
In effect Strength: limited
California SB 524 (AI-written police reports must be disclosed + audited)
California · Effective January 1, 2026 · Cal. Penal Code 13663 (SB 524, 2025)
This law brings transparency to the use of AI in police reports. When a law enforcement report is generated wholly or partly by AI, the report must carry a per-page disclosure identifying the AI program used, along with the officer's signature verifying they reviewed it and that the facts are true. Agencies must keep the first AI-generated draft and an audit trail showing the user, data, and media involved, and vendors are barred from sharing or selling agency data except for the agency's own purposes.
-
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 Santa Cruz, California
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Santa Cruz, 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 Santa Cruz, California
Are there AI laws in Santa Cruz, California?
What federal AI rules apply in Santa Cruz?
Does California have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in California?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Santa Cruz?
How do I report an AI law violation in Santa Cruz?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Santa Cruz?
Is Santa Cruz 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 Santa Cruz?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Santa Cruz 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.