AI Laws in Washington, District of Columbia
AI Laws USA tracks 24 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Washington, District of Columbia: 10+ federal rules, 8 District of Columbia state-level rules, and 6 local Washington ordinances. Coverage is strongest on automated decision-making, AI disclosure and transparency, consumer data privacy, and government use of AI. 10 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Washington local AI rules (and Washington County)
6 local AI rules specific to Washington, District of Columbia or Washington County.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
DC AI Training Mandate
Washington, DC · Effective April 1, 2025 · OCTO Responsible AI Training Program (effective 2025)
DC became the first major US city to mandate Responsible AI training for all DC government employees and contractors, delivered by OCTO with InnovateUS to operationalize the DC AI Values and OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy.
-
Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B24-0558)
Washington, DC · B24-0558 (DC Council, 2021; reintroduced)
DC's Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act would bar algorithmic decision-making that discriminates in housing, employment, education, credit, healthcare, insurance. Mandates annual bias audits, consumer notice, disclosure; private right of action with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Pending across DC Council sessions since 2021.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
DC AI Values Mayor's Order
Washington, DC · Effective February 8, 2024 · D.C. Mayor's Order 2024-028 (Feb. 8, 2024)
Mayor Bowser's order requires DC government agencies to check any AI deployment against six AI Values: clear benefit to the people, safety and equity, accountability, transparency, sustainability, and privacy and cybersecurity. It created an AI Taskforce, set deadlines including a mandatory AI procurement handbook, and requires every agency to submit an AI strategic plan in cohorts through October 2026.
-
Proposed / pending
DC SDAA (B25-0114)
Washington, DC · D.C. Council B25-0114 (proposed)
A DC Council bill that would ban using algorithms to discriminate based on race, sex, age, or disability in important life decisions such as employment, housing, credit, insurance, and education, and would require notice and audits.
-
Expired
DC Algorithm Bill (not enacted)
Washington, DC · D.C. Council B24-0558 (2021); B25-0114 (2023) (not enacted)
A proposed DC law that would ban businesses from using algorithms that discriminate based on protected traits in decisions about jobs, housing, credit, insurance, and education, and would require annual bias audits and consumer disclosures. Despite multiple introductions since 2021, it has never been enacted — DC residents rely on federal protections.
-
In effect Strength: limited
MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
Washington, DC (Metropolitan Police Department) · Effective June 1, 2024 · MPD Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program (General Order 803.09)
The DC Metropolitan Police Department launched its UAS program in June 2024 under General Order 803.09, prohibiting facial recognition and weaponization and barring targeting based on protected characteristics.
District of Columbia-level AI rules
8 District of Columbia state rules apply to residents and businesses in Washington. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective November 15, 2024 · NCAI Resolution #NC-24-008 (2024)
Defines tribal digital sovereignty as tribes' sovereign authority over physical and virtual network infrastructure and data — acquisition, storage, transmission, access, use. Explicitly notes that AI tools can circumvent tribal data collection protocols.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli
District of Columbia · Effective February 8, 2024 · Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelligence Values and Establishing Artificial Intelligence Strategic Benchmarks
Mayor Bowser's order defines six AI values (clear benefit to the people, safety & equity, accountability, transparency, sustainability, and privacy & cybersecurity), establishes an AI Advisory Group and AI Taskforce, and requires District agencies to verify AI-values alignment before deploying any AI tool.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
NCAI Res. SAC-22-026 (Emerging Tech)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective November 4, 2022 · NCAI Resolution #SAC-22-026 (2022)
NCAI resolution addressing how emerging technologies including AI can circumvent tribal data collection protocols without proper consent. Reinforces tribal authority over data flowing through AI systems.
-
In effect Strength: limited
DC Bar Op. 388 (GenAI)
DC · Effective April 24, 2024 · D.C. Bar Op. 388 (Apr. 24, 2024)
DC lawyers using generative AI must understand the tools they use, supervise AI output, protect client confidentiality, communicate with clients about AI, comply with billing rules, and avoid the unauthorized practice of law by AI chatbots.
-
Proposed / pending
OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy
District of Columbia · Effective February 8, 2024 · OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy
The Office of the Chief Technology Officer's governance policy establishes rules for the responsible and secure use of AI/ML in DC government, requiring written agency-director approval before using agency data with AI, cybersecurity and business risk assessments, use of only OCTO-approved platforms, data-classification restrictions, and continuous monitoring.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
NCAI Res. KAN-18-011 (IDS)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective June 4, 2018 · NCAI Resolution #KAN-18-011 (2018)
First collective NCAI resolution supporting U.S. tribes' exercise of Indigenous data sovereignty — the principle that tribes have inherent authority over data about their citizens, lands, and resources. Foundation document for tribal restrictions on AI training data and government data sharing.
-
In effect Strength: limited
DC DOI AI Bulletin
DC · Effective May 21, 2024 · DC DISB Bulletin 24-IB-002-05/21 (2024-05-21)
The DC Department of Insurance adopted the NAIC Model Bulletin on Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems by Insurers. Insurers licensed in DC must maintain a written AI program with governance, risk-management, testing, third-party-AI oversight, and documentation controls. The bulletin operationalizes existing unfair-trade-practice and unfair-discrimination law as applied to insurers' AI use cases — underwriting, pricing, claims, fraud detection, and marketing.
-
In effect Strength: limited
DC AG Schwalb senior AI-fraud unit
DC · Effective April 18, 2025 · D.C. Code § 28-3904; DC OAG Consumer Alert (Apr. 18, 2025)
The DC Attorney General announced an Elder Justice Initiative focused on AI-enabled scams targeting older Washingtonians — voice-clone grandparent scams, tech-support fraud using AI chatbots, and AI romance scams. The office uses DC's Consumer Protection Procedures Act and the Elder Financial Exploitation Act to investigate.
Federal AI rules that apply in Washington, District of Columbia
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Washington, District of Columbia. 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 Washington, District of Columbia
Are there AI laws in Washington, District of Columbia?
What federal AI rules apply in Washington?
Does District of Columbia have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in District of Columbia?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Washington?
How do I report an AI law violation in Washington?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Washington?
Is Washington regulated by District of Columbia's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Washington?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Washington 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.