Home › AI Laws › District of Columbia › Washington
AI Laws in Washington, District of Columbia
As of 2026-08-12, AI Laws USA tracks 23 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Washington, District of Columbia: 10+ federal protections, 8 District of Columbia state-level rules, and 5 local Washington ordinances. Coverage is strongest on automated decision-making, AI disclosure and transparency, consumer data privacy, and government use of AI. 9 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Washington local AI rules (and Washington County)
5 local AI rules specific to Washington, District of Columbia or Washington County.
-
In effect Moderate protection
DC AI Training Mandate
Washington, DC · Effective 2025-04-01 · 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 Proposed or 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 Moderate protection
DC AI Values Mayor's Order
Washington, DC · Effective 2024-02-08 · 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 Proposed or 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 Unknown
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.
District of Columbia-level AI rules
8 District of Columbia state rules apply to residents and businesses in Washington. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Moderate protection
NCAI Res. NC-24-008 (Digital Sovereignty)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective 2024-11-15 · 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 Limited protection
Mayor's Order 2024-028: Articulating DC's Artificial Intelli
District of Columbia · Effective 2024-02-08 · 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 Limited protection
DC Bar Op. 388 (GenAI)
DC · Effective 2024-04-24 · 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.
-
In effect Moderate protection
NCAI Res. SAC-22-026 (Emerging Tech)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective 2022-11-04 · 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.
-
Proposed / pending Limited protection
OCTO AI/ML Governance Policy
District of Columbia · Effective 2024-02-08 · 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 Moderate protection
NCAI Res. KAN-18-011 (IDS)
National Congress of American Indians · Effective 2018-06-04 · 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 Limited protection
DC DOI AI Bulletin
DC · Effective 2024-05-21 · 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 Limited protection
DC AG Schwalb senior AI-fraud unit
DC · Effective 2025-04-18 · 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 protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Washington, District of Columbia. 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 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.