Home › AI Laws › South Dakota › Sioux Falls
AI Laws in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 15 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Sioux Falls, South Dakota: 10+ federal protections, 5 South Dakota state-level rules (no Sioux Falls-specific ordinances are indexed yet). Coverage is strongest on consumer data privacy, automated decision-making, deepfakes, and AI-generated images. 4 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Sioux Falls local AI rules (and Minnehaha County)
No city- or county-specific AI ordinances are currently indexed for Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
- Honest gap: We don't currently index any Sioux Falls-specific AI ordinances. Federal and South Dakota state rules still apply throughout the city. Have we missed something? Email feedback@ailawsusa.com.
South Dakota-level AI rules
5 South Dakota state rules apply to residents and businesses in Sioux Falls. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Moderate protection
NBDC Genomic Sovereignty
Native BioData Consortium · Effective 2018-01-01 · Native BioData Consortium governance protocols (est. 2018)
First U.S. Indigenous-led biorepository. Keeps Indigenous biological samples and derived genomic data under Indigenous governance and consent, with privacy-preserving protocols to prevent extractive AI/genomic research without tribal authorization. Based on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota.
-
In effect Limited protection
SD Election Deepfake Law
South Dakota · Effective 2025-07-01 · SD SB 164 (2025); signed Mar. 31, 2025; eff. July 1, 2025
South Dakota requires that intentionally harmful, unlabeled AI deepfakes of politicians distributed within 90 days of an election carry an AI-manipulation disclosure; violators face civil and criminal liability. Broadcasters, newspapers, websites, and radio stations are exempt, as are satire and parody.
-
In effect Limited protection
State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Gui
South Dakota · Effective 2024-01-01 · State of South Dakota Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines & Acceptable State Use
The Bureau of Information and Telecommunications sets acceptable-use guidelines for generative AI in state government, requiring employees to fact-check, edit, and treat AI output as a starting point while managing bias, privacy, and cybersecurity risks.
-
In effect Limited protection
SD AI CSAM Law
South Dakota · Effective 2024-02-13 · 2024 SD SB 79
South Dakota expanded its child pornography statutes to explicitly cover AI-generated and deepfake sexual imagery involving minors — including fully synthetic images where no real child was used.
-
Expired Proposed or pending
SB239
SD · SD SB239 (2026 Regular Session)
Modify provisions relating to the reinvestment payment program, and relating to the purchasing of goods and services used by projects approved for the reinvestment payment program.
Federal AI rules that apply in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 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 Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Are there AI laws in Sioux Falls, South Dakota?
What federal AI rules apply in Sioux Falls?
Does South Dakota have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in South Dakota?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Sioux Falls?
How do I report an AI law violation in Sioux Falls?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Sioux Falls?
Is Sioux Falls regulated by South Dakota's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Sioux Falls?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Sioux Falls 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.